and previously here we're raising two arguments as to why we believe that was erroneous in the first would be the father whose initials r t v would have  standing to um bring the motion and the second argument is that the circumstances in this case would not lend itself to a finding that there was a per se of interest i'll start with the standing you sure you have one of the cases that we cite where is the illinois supreme court case of shorts vs heard alone and the court stated in that case that it is axiomatic that only a party who is in a client of the attorney disqualification so we think that's an important general rule and it indicates here it was not the people of the state of illinois or the rock father's have in a situation where the public defender could become comfortable think yes and i think god would be more problematic to that our but army doesn't standing also go to having a real interest in the outcome of out of the lot of patients i think there has to be a harm would have to be our harm to the father and the harm caused by this particular kind of life and we don't have any indication i think the role in this case and generally is arm it under it can undertake a number of tasks generally it's to us to assist the court resign it's to try to determine when issues arise as to proper placement of the trial what would be in the child's best interests it's service plans with some recommendations as to how the case should you proceed proceed but d c s house is governed by the best interests of the child and i would point there are situations where they can disagree most of the time they do agree but there are situations when there can be disagreement but so it in support of the standing argument and one is this court's recent decision in w r and another is the impact in case we believe  previously served as a mediator for both the mother in the father in a matter that this court determined was the same matter i think that case is different because in w r the mediation services were provided to both the mother and father and this court expressed some concern that there may have been confidence involved and but it makes sense that when the services were being done by for both the mother and father when the mediation involved either one would seek disqualification here had standing to seek to disqualify the stepdaughter's lawyer in a case where an order of protection was being sought against the stepdaughter this is the attorney had been hired by the child's mother and the step father's argument really was that they attorney should have been appointed by the court and there was a potential conflict not because of prior representation as is alleged in this case but the potential conflict was because if the mother was hiring the child's lawyer then the lawyer might be conflicted about  mother's right to control the litigation and that the stepfather can do but again that's that's a different situation that's not a situation like this one that is arising out of prior representation  again our position would be the father in this case did not have standing to bring this bring this motion in this case and certainly one of the leading cases in this area or one case that is cited and i believe by both parties is there is g out of the second district and that's another case that's a case where a per public defender represented the mother at our it was the same attorney representing the mother in the same attorney was appointed to represent the child in that situation even though court recognise that all lawyers in this type of case or government are supposed to be advocating the best interests of the child but the court pointed out that the mother attorney should be advocating those interests from the mother's perspective and there is certainly and often there is often adversity between a mother  situation where the c f s and the people who would be represented by the state's attorney are both purely supposed to be interested in the best interests of the  not lend itself to being a per se outlook of interest again it is possible in individual cases that are there might be a conflict but the state's attorney has not asserted do depends on what the parents do if the parents and the best word i can come up for it is reason bill what paid if they address the problem that led to remove all the state's attorney and d are not necessarily going to support terminate should they wait and that's the outcome that's desired in most cases that one reason these petitions are filed are are often as a practical matter yes the state's attorney then decides what to do but this d c of us would provide the information to the state's general yes  i i don't want to necessarily say that it's the only situation by it's her i think it would take pretty extraordinary circumstances to allow standing in other of that in that situation kids but in any case he department has made the suggestion it read that this is a matter of first impression  as to whether or not this lawyer miscavige can be who he was previously working for the state's attorney can be disqualified from representing the department of children then he services these a very unique type of proceedings there are many parties involved parents children the state the department of children and family services as the guardian of the children and sometimes other individuals involved in behalf of the children as well all of the parties all of the proceedings are guided by the best interests of the child not necessarily what's any particular party's best interest but interest of the people of illinois and the interest of the department children family services are always almost always along but that's simply that's an assumption  even within the unified go of person and i met a seven thirty eight competing positions clearly makes this within the unified goal of best interests we agree with s g that the better rule is to is to apply i'm paraphrasing is to apply in person a conflict rule to these terminations proceedings and i quote a clear rule better informs attorneys that while multiple parties from the public defender's office ma appeared on behalf of them and prejudice is presumed situations the reason that we are looking at all of these cases is that in all of these cases even if it's not the goal right now determination parental rights is a grave possibility and term mission of parental rights is a drastic measure for that reason there bonds are forced for lack of a better word to go through to follow the service plan which frequently puts them through counseling  during these proceedings there is nothing that guarantees that the state and the department of children and family services will take the same position on the nature of the parent's progress on the sufficien state to the department of children and then services oh for that matter you know some of these cases in which council has been disqualified and they're cited in the briefs involve the same attorney representing a respondent mother and they responded rather at different times during the proceedings one could make the same argument that counsel has made about the interest  of the respondents being a lie so that there is no conflict one could argue there's no conflict and in an attorney representing it responded mom and i responded because their interests are aligned however law informs us differently the case law has actually reversed judgments terminating parental rights where the respondent mom and the respondent father were represented by the same attorney at different times in one simply cannot at the outset of these proceedings what position any party is going to take or what progress a party is going to make on the best interests of the child and for that reason attorney should not be able to represent more than one party during its with qualification this qualification was still appropriate in that case because a mom who sought disqualification in that case had a real interest in the hope of litigation she wasn't just some ante in the minor child so he can't be seen as someone who's just ten gently involved and lacking standing lacking standing to challenge  it's decided by the supreme court last year and citing that is the state says that the supreme court has indicate that something more than an interest in the outcome of the litigation would be the standard for standing otherwise i mean all of those co defendants had an interest in the outcome of that le asian so if that was the standard they should have been able to assert the rights of the defendant whose motion was denied but they were not able to do that and i would just  have a situation where the same attorney represents the mother and father in an abuse and the guy proceeding that would be that would be a per se people the state's attorney would both be advocating the best interests of the children so i don't think the characterization of switching sides is quite correct again there  that might lead a court to conclude that there is a conflict but the circumstances of those individual cases should be analyzed if the state's attorney the proper party to