were we go to determine whether or not he had the right to this type of treatment subsequent dismissal was improper to judge i think that the source you're not going to find it in the statute itself would you're going to find is simply that he's committed as a person having a mental disorder that predisposes him to commit sexual offenses and so the argument is and not being afforded treatment designed to affect his recovery as i get over the hump and now it's on the evidence your honor i would argue begin keeping in mind that although this is a civil proceeding for that person here it's clear from the record he doesn't have a sexual affair a perfectly disorder and so just giving him sexual disorder treatment isn't going to affect recovery because he doesn't have a perfect disorder according to all three of the committee evaluations he's alleging subsystem use treatment would be helpful it would reduce his wrists this i'm not getting this please take a look at it i think that should be enough to get into cour triggers certain things based upon certain findings by the trial so the in terms of the elements yes certainly that means that a court has made a finding that the person had a mental disorder exists or for more than one year predispose a person to commit sexual fest's yes the all those facts those are those are is it as a requirement of law somewhere in the past somewhere in the record he's entitled to review under your feet no your honor what i am arguing is that because the person must have a mental disorder as a part of require the courts and correct the director and how to treat the person that is true but that's exactly what you find quest well with my client is requesting that the court review the treatment that the director is providing him because my client is regards to whatever the online places were and so forth this is absolutely true your honor it would also be true that if mr howe it shows in a jury trial rather than a bench trial a jury verdict would not contain any recovery and so the evidence would necessarily consist of what is the treatment he's giving and what would help him recover so in order recover from the legal condition one way to recover from the legal condition is of the record if you look at not only all the evaluations certainly at the evidence that came in at the second revocation hearing the hearing in which his conditional release was revoked of mr howe has a long history of substance problems and it seems that much of his other criminal histories directly related to the and  your honor the our position is this he clearly according to everybody every expert who has ever diagnosed has since whatever else has issues are hazardous substance abuse disorders are unlike some other mental disorders they are indeed amenable to treatment and with good treatment there are many people when in remission for a walker's son so to say that the evidence that he needs it well your honor i think that the believed it was true because he has this disorder not otherwise specified and because he's previously had problems with drugs he he qualifies as a sexually bidder's person but he should get additional treatment or supplementary for substance abuse why would they not  part of the in the report judge i'm unfamiliar with the situation in the in the context of s t p he's aware of recommendations made to the that's sort of like a patient going in the hospital and telling him that what they need but has he said is there evidence in the record that he said i've asked for sex treatment and i've tried to explain to the mcdougal proceeding and whether this is at the pleading stage or this is a motion and i just want to bring this court back to cast me which said that which resolved that the person seeking review of their motion and part of that is whether the question is whether or not he should have been evidence you're hearing perhaps before the circuit court denied that motion but i just want to make sure that we're all well you just confuse me where i don't think i was i just want to clarify that the director in these committed proceedings is filing a response to a motion and asking the court to on the merits deny the motion but but even if we simply wanting to understand how you're repairing arising this in a different way than i am i'm looking at what happened mr howell filed a petition the state filed a response with in that response was contradictory language asking either for denial or for dismissal at the time the trial court took it up the parties discussed it being a dismissal motion that's in fact how it was handled and the trial court dismissed it is that correct or incorrect your honor that is correct they took hades and that's where we're at not how it might have been handled differently and the other point that i just want to clarify your honor says the primacy of the commitment or  the their commitment order is yes it is possible for the judge the committee judge to make a nondescript finding about what diagnosis supports conviction but there ok so you can't dispute what it is that he's saying and saying those are incorrect that's not the inquiry at the stage where you're requesting dismissal just looking at the petition on its face the motion on space he wrongly left and substance abuse treatment wasn't available to him he said that a sex offense treatment was available to him but the regulations make clear that sex offense treatment and cover cover substance abuse treatment when medically deemed appropriate and so on its face the petition motion said that he was being denied some treatment there this sex drive it appears treatment treatment of must be performance of the standards promulgated by the sex offender management board acting conducted by treatment provide a license under the sex offender evaluation treatment provider act so the directors are permitted to substitute a freestanding program to treat substance abuse that he's participated in treatment and this is important because this is the act it is set up so that people who are committed are there only as long as necessary to be recovered from  that was found to make them sexually dangerous and here opposing counsel has been talking about personality disorder not being a pedophile you disorder but that's not what that's not based on any language in the statute or regulations but tell me this what is that a  minimal what would a an individual who has been committed over the s t p of be required to plead in order to request the type of relief that mr howard is requesting here that being  that give us a little bit of an idea to go and cast main cast and was a venue case but this circuit court in that case did grant a motion for review of treatment in order to treatment where an individual had been denied had been diagnosed and committed because of a substance abuse disorder and then had been denied release because although he had been given some treatment he hadn't been he had been denied release because he had untreated substance abuse issues these and the circuit court order additional treatment additional substance abuse treatment for that individual and so here how many to a legit minimum that he had completed available sex offender treatment but that he was being denied released on the basis of some needed to additional treatment and we don't have that here because how didn't participate in treatment he said that that was not suitable for him but that's not something that the act regulations allow the persons who decide what sort of treatment sexual interest persons need or the mental  although it is not a disorder that generally is paraphiliac in that he is not always thinking about sex but this personality disorder makes it such that he has a lack of regard for his victims feelings of lack of consent and is only concerned about his own having his own gratification and that's what the commitment orders discussed and that's what all of the mental health professionals in the record have said i wonder if this is something that i'm just not grasping i understand in the record there are these things there one could walk in terms of the testimony of the arabs for which reports are commitment or so but when we're at a pleading stage where we're simply looking at whether or not treatment in my honest and colas which is what was alleged in kasserine mcdougal here we have someone who said this type of treatment is inappropriate for me i should be getting set substance abuse treatment i don't have a personality disorder problem he's literally said that treatment this contemplated under the or no it certainly is your honor but it's when in treatment is substance abuse dealt with and the act in these regulations professional regulate the clinic regulations under the act show that the st steps that  actually dangerous persons must deal with in treatment is identifying the diagnosis identify the behavior and diagnosis that are the basis for the commitment and developing some understanding about the to that behavior and here that's a personality disorder with anti social features that prevented and how from understanding his victims and then after that step after there is some engagement in therapy on that point cognitive restructuring then dealing with ways to manage the that the sort of thing because there's no getting over a personality disorder and the cases on discharge say that you can't hold a person just because they have gotten over that mental disorder but they have to learn is how to manage it and once you learn to manage it then you need to think about the other dynamic risk factors that are laid out in the regulations and those include substance abuse because again as long as treatment writer said that substance abuse is associated with losing the ability to go back to the things you learned counseling and so substance abuse plays a role later treatment and i've been told that substance abuse is preventing me from moving on in treatment i'm asking the court to order a referral because i've already sought one and i've been denied one or i'm asking the court to order my counselors to provide stay away from drinking and drug use that he'd be ok it is very clear of both from their discussion that this is been going out for some time so is it in the record yes hang up of you know a person has committed in an s e p proceeding with an index st for which you're not convicted because the state never goes to trial on that particular offense the last offenses being considered in the evaluation is when his issues according to him if consistently been gross at all he has alleged more than enough to say that he should be able to get into court and have a hearing o