abuse and neglect applicable to the judical tory hearings in the juvenile court was also applicable to the temporary custody hearings although the people do not challenge the appellate court's reversal of the neglect findings that will ultimately made by the trial court based upon the mother's failure to comply with a safety plan the people urged this court to consider the issue as a matter of  the magnitude and the immediacy of the interests involved warrant a decision and action by this court the public interest exception applies here all three elements have been in that first it's a question of public nature this case involves minors and the threshold evidentiary standards applicable to temporary custody hearings as this court noted in andrea av cases involving minors and the juvenile court act constitute a question of public nature second we need authoritative determination i'm for the purpose of jai guiding the judges  faced with the question in temporary custody hearings on a day to day to day basis as the cook county state's attorney pointed out in their meet a spree if i'm just in cook county between january first two thousand and eight and october thirty first two thousand and eight nine hundred forty two temporary custody hearings were held and as of october fifteenth two thousand and eight there were over seventy seven hundred cases handing in the cook county child protection division the final element of the public interest exception to moot as is the likelihood that this question will be occur on your honor's juvenile courts across this nation reaching the added insist that was presented to the juvenile court in the temporary custody hearing itself addressed a new issue the the trial court had progressed to adjudicate or hearing and  dispositional hearing and the evidence that was sufficient to make the finding him glad should have been what was reviewed by the court and only should have been what was reviewed by the court it should not have reached the issue of whether there was probable cause at the temporary custody hearing it should have just looked at the sufficiency of the evidence at the agenda could try and just positional hearings and turning to the merits the core aberration requirement set forth in section eighteen for c does not apply to temporary custody hearings the juvenile court proceedings are several in nature and they guided by the provisions in the juvenile court at and in looking at the juvenile court act as a whole we see the progressive burdens being imposed upon the state at each stage of the juvenile court proceedings we see that for a police officer to take a child into custody all is necessary is that a reasonable suspicion of abuse and neglect appear within like no your honor what this sascha touring language is is the court must determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the minor is abused neglected or dependent and that question then necessarily provokes the court to address the later question which is the purpose of the temporary custody hearing whether it's a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the safety and protection of the it's a very low threshold evidentiary level established by section two ten of the juvenile court act the general somebody has said that at that temporary custody hearing all witnesses present shall be examined before the court in relation to any matter connected with the allegations made in the petition this broad directive to show us that what the general somebody was concerned about was the court being able to look at the situation within forty eight hours of the child being taken into custody and made a reasonable probable cause  to what needs to happen while the case progresses and then we turn after the temporary custody hearing determination is made then eventually have the trial the jud allegations of abuse and neglect allows them into evidence and then it says however no such statement if i'm cooperated and not subject to cross examination shall be sufficient in itself to support a finding of abuse and neglect and then make sense in the judicature hearing because that is exactly what the trial court has to do it has to make a finding at that point based upon the evidence based upon the restrictions of evidence after the state has had a full opportunity to investigate and to determine i'm sorry to gather evidence that show us by a preponderance of the evidence that the minor in fact is abused or neglected  legislative intent that two eighteen four c doesn't apply to temporary custody hearings is the fact that the general somebody chose not to put that corroborated have ration requirement in the provisions that apply to temporary custody hearings also you don't have as i mentioned in a temporary custody here you don't have an actual finding of abuse or neglect what you have is you have probable cause us which is which is different then supporting a finding parts which you explain i may have misunderstood you you it mission of evidence standards at each stage of the proceeding and the temporary custody hearing which is the immediate hearing which the court's got to determine you know th necessity of the child safety comes within forty eight hours of the child being taken into custody so the requirement that there is cooperation doesn't apply to that immediate  hearing it and the cooperation statute itself applies only when there's a finding of abuse or neglect which is not what you're looking at in the temporary custody contacts  so answer your question i think it's indicative of the general somebody's intent that there is no hearsay prohibit and or restrictions set forth in the temporary custody section of the juvenile court adds in addition to the uphold court's decision being contrary to the juvenile court act it's also contrary to the overarching purpose of that act which is the protection of minors section one dash two of the act the general assembly specifically directed that the purpose and policy is to serve and protect the best interests of minors and instructs kooris to really construe the act to carry out that purpose and policy and as the amicus pointed out both the cook county public guardian and the cook county state's attorney simply can't be accomplish given the time frames that govern on the temporary custody hearing