the next case is randy martin  are analytically distinct and we are appealing to the district courts granted the rule fifty motion because we believe that the court got it wrong in connection with randy mohali claim it did not weigh the evidence correctly and allow the claim to go forward but even more significantly and in order to show our case in its clearest light the court did not analyze christian perches whites at all any analysis of her rights or th they were those were her eight her children two children by randy mohali and her nieces and nephews her grandchild and in fact a sick child by brenda had a they were taken from her home she was a co  so that act cannot be overlooked it's the declaring the van bonus case what if what if see if the court was correct on the reasonable suspicion because of the allegations of abuse i don't i don't think that the court ever really reached a conclusion or reasonable suspicion rather it went through an analysis of randy mohan his claims and then really did the court came down and said the court will not address the constitutionality of suspicion that there's a child at imminent danger of abuse there were three investigations in this case we point to that we introduce them three zero five and in zero six and in fact one of those six was the proceeding saturday which all came to the exact opposite conclusion there was no danger to any child the children were well taken care of one of the investigators and one in november of zero five susan santos was one of those  child by listing ten years old and of course we argue vigorously this and firm but there was an investigation the investigation went to the exact opposite result the children are safe and well and i have some just one there was one in november of appropriate person to supervise children well i would argue that they certainly did when they investigated his interaction with nathan in zero five but even if that were true here on earth that they had no reason to l identify a problem actually it exists then the state where the county is somehow closed once they become aware of that problem from relying on that at a later point in time does not by itself warrants seizing children from a home the standard was set by prof and the standard is set forth in pennsylvania code there has to be some reasonable suspicion of danger but even if that had happened or even if the c y s didn't know about that they cannot rely on that ten year old listening that say hence we may now take health care they may not because there is no imminent danger petition was precipitated oh yes it does your honor this testimony in the court basically did to briefly recapitulate their son irvin green and and the mother of savannah ronnie fisher were abusing alcohol and drugs petition which was presented to the court of common pleas of herbs county judge lashon juvenile court on that very morning they copied c y s on their petition not copy formally to one party and there's no doubt that they were not a party but they got a copy of it human though those are the two caseworkers that filed the petitions they knew that they were taking orders from others it was self evident how do we know that there was a conspiracy and nine eleven because different terrorist groups acted in concert it was poor david activity christine kurtz ronnie fisher and brenda heavy so they were acting in concert clearly under the direction of their supervisors george could very testified he's the executive director he said yes we only file these removal that responsibility five the executive director george could very then that is an official act of the agency we need look no further there is no greater policy may say is it that is that a custom or a policy if it's a singular it can be your honor but i would rather point with another case where i think this was addressed by this court and that's the mcgreevey case it's cited in our brief and it's  school the school district and this court said well it was actually the superintendent that had the responsibility for writing reviews there wasn't a removal the school board would have bit and the superintendent de gated that responsibility to the principal so once delegated the principal giving a review for retaliatory purpose because she was they thought she was alive that was that  fact that fact alone that the system didn't operate we spoke how does that become a customer policy for bad actions by w  flexible fungible plastic term that that really is subject to the close careful analysis on the facts when i sat down to read all these cases about some in policy and started to try and draw closely at each set of facts and the term customer policy became a kind of code word almost certainly a very broad term that was shaped to the individual facts of the circumstances but where you have that clearly fails to meet the cross janitor and conduct that clearly is approved by authority and we think that that is an act of the policy maker and i want to draw your i guess i guess i'm still having troubles trying to figure out if you know what do you think you know i know that you say taking the children from the home was a conduct that shocks a conscious ok where was the policy the berks county followed were filled fall that led to the act of removing the children from the home and what caused them to you know what did they do where was their mistake here ok well the mistake was not meeting the cross channel to answer that part to answer the policy part the act of deciding whether to remove children from the home is is an act of judgment that i six finding of indicated ok and the petition for protection from abuse but well they test their testimony was they never relied on the petition for protection can't be enough just can't what would be mistaken about the law well berg i thought was a case that we would rely on to address that in the bird case there was a warrant that was mistakenly issued by a software system and this court held first not standing that there was no written policy having a software system that issue six thousand warrants a year is going to be attributed back in its a power and then the mere fact that there was an ad reckless or negligent out of time i just want to to ask the court to consider the application of more versus the city of cleveland in terms of the rights that christine kurtz had with her nieces and nephews brenda have these children because the district court over adult together thank you very much question with regard to see why before you know first there's no evidence that a c y forty nine is used to present childline with exculpatory evidence that is purely an argument that's been made by pla fs during trial and here on appeal there is no evidence to support that they did not introduce any testimony from any witness that a c y forty nine is used for the purposes of providing  in fact the only evidence they did present is when they presented randy knight or the now director of in the services of first county on the issue and when she was asked questions on the issue and she was cross examined on the issue and she her testimony was security unit numbers names witnesses things like that and here another obligation to report that are not is is there another obligation that is other than that particular form w i i i think that we need to focus on the facts of this case ron or i am not aware of any any case where there is a recantation that puts a face and expressed burden on a county agency to provide that information to childline mention that there were a couple of different recantations it only occurred once before mr malvo filed his appeal that was in one nine hundred ninety eight and it was during a time where where the victim who was living with her grandmother in texas ran away to writing and sat and and and he was she was taken to see why yes during that initial interview the victim said i want to live with my back and of and the caseworker said you can't because there's party first again keeping it in the in the in the in the view of this case mr mulholland alleged that he never received notice of the being placed on takes it on itself to do that the right isn't that it isn't the county the county does issue knows and i would suggest your honor that that does not provide grounds for motel liability or any constitutional child line operates as to it being unusual or typical that notices don't get sent out by job line this night or testified that this is the first time in over seven hundred fifty investigations that she was involved in that she ever heard of somebody coming back and saying they never received a notice so there is that evidence on the record with regards to your history of child lines in my corrected d p w has to notify and give the person so notified the opportunity to explain can contest it that that's part of the notice yes if i may dress what you're on to refer to as well even before  in the argument there was there's a lot of records of them on all problems by counsel for players and i would suggest if you look at this record and it's total he recognizes today that there's no such thing as responding it's here against m liability for a violation of someone's constitutional rights i think the record reflects that that recognition didn't come during trial there is no evidence presented there was never even an effort to present evidence of prior similar evidence of faulty practices or or procedures and it seems to me that that is an argument that's being put out on appeal but with the bottom line being that the evidence wasn't presented during the trial which is why the rule fifty motion was granted because there was no evidence to support that a lot of the the s single act more no liability to attach there it must be an act of a policy and that evidence was not present there was no evidence that there was a policy maker that said go and do this on the saturday and that's what would be different families but among all families had contact with children users if they did it to news service agent goes out to a house under one family they have that file at best that was not removed until several years later so he was on time when they go and that's why it is explainable and of course we didn't get to in our defense who were prepared to present this evidence but but the judge properly granted the will fifty what happened was we would we would present that as a said what people go out there but they're not necessarily they don't have all the information all the people that are present even if somebody says hey i'm ready mom it's a stretch started living in a home with children in pittsburgh the pittsburgh sure news service if you could possibly know that that rainy mohan is one tough it usually takes a tree or event such as what happened in the courtroom that led to what you want to refer to as  county was not a party to that action there happened to be a group of caseworkers in the back of the room at that time they were not at a party exact and that action they could not have stood up walked up to the bar the court said whoa whoa whoa this can but in the petition mr kurtz says i now live again with rain in my home they had been living separately for over ten years so there was no reason for the county to believe that ramos living with children they see in the petition that he is now living with children against not only children but many children many children some of whom don't belong to him in this purpose they go back and pull the file look at the records they see he's on trial in this it now we know based upon that petition and the judge granting the order to for the grandchild to do services looks at it and then realizes that that 's a potentially dangerous situation they go and they haven't any obligation for good i mean i think that may undermine a lot of the emotion in a case law temporarily there must be a hearing within seventy two hours there's no claim here that that hearing was provided in fact the after that here is some of the children did go back ok so does it always work out perfectly if they did that said go and remove the children you're basically saying they should have done something else and i'm not sure what it is that that something else is that makes sense under the law yeah i  individual so that we might have this qualified immunity argument the three supervisors who really made the decision share are in on it not are perhaps it's child it's why i asked that did not document the supervisors are to the extent that that's and last we should play should not bear the burden of it they are responsible for document and in some cases they document who was on a petition review committee but not to the events that