inappropriate the trial for us just dismissed their complaint and asked us to define inappropriate we define inappropriate as conduct violates both criminal code that would trigger as well as absolutely why because because inappropriate conduct by definition if it's violating incra there is a mandatory reporting that is required by both the mandatory reporters of the church a specific examples in the complaint for example the last sitting is one example which council had had said well one time one lasting is enough but one would have sitting is enough in this context if it sexual in nature if there is refutation and if its in an organization such as a church we have clergy who are mandated by a report that activity we also have a church with in terms of specifics we have the director of youth ministry showing pornography in the church to teens to youths to the youth group in the church the fact that that is a lot of shows two things number one that they don't have any internet safety program provisions at all natur and number two that he felt so comfortable and so in boulder and the environment was such that he was allowed to show children pornography in the church itself then straights what kind of environment that we have here and yes the mirroring the touching the fondling in the complaint you allege multiple employees volunteers and cetera look or see or observe yes i realize you don't have to plead or prove your case in the but it's very vague shouldn't there be something more to for a court in the defendant or responding to hang their hat on something no way to defend against in there's only one paragraph and that sally's father did specifically identified not by his name but by the fact that he is the friend's father everything else is is multiple and that makes it hard to follow this complaint well i do reference the one single mandatory reporter who was a volunteer that witnessed jane doe and co together and after two days of seeing them together identified the conduct as inappropriate that that one person who sees these two people together an adult child after two days picks up on it but reverend james does not after eighteen and a half months plus you have similarly patients that reverend james who was and that was not provided to me right as set forth and very the custodial caretaker the voluntary undertaking the master servant for the caretaker going to voluntary undertaking we have no issue with custody or voluntary undertaking portion the next step is reasonably foreseeable and whether this rate was reasonably forseeable in the standard we look at mclean is whether the actual event was something that was freakish bizarre fantastical in light of the circumstances and given moments going on in this church both specifically what james saw what was reported to him the last sitting the pornography in the church the snatching and everything else it does that makes it reason we first see what those specific facts but represented he was pleading for employee to come and retrieve him for an employee meeting and he was in his office he sent a yes he sent a picture to call or two jane i'm sorry when it says on one occasion and then on other occasions is one seventy eight yes when do these two events or when does the first the picture happening in the other occasions after before we are are they with only if it were our only true if there were only true i understand it's designed that way and it is designed that way however the recipient can can actually freeze frame frame the photograph and that is part of the criminal proceeding right and then on other occasions cosentino pictures of a similar situation with other language yes when did those occur again before or after the june twenty third again before the rape best pla chronologically and otherwise then jane who who had seen these before the rape or who knew about these that is going to have to be decided during discovery the of the one policy required background check did specify who was as you put it several times both in briefing and in year in year complaint a simple google search didn't require a simple stone right into being hired i went to six fifteen stage and i i don't know without discovery i'm not going to find out to what extent they did or did not conduct their background investigation but obviously it was the it was insufficient by the fact that this man was on child porn sites and known to be on child porn sites known as you go again known by whom when by the internet go on  your position is they should have done this post higher periodically it's an ongoing investigation it correct me if i'm wrong but i don't recall anywhere where you suggest it should be done over six months once a year or once every five years i don't suggest it because my suggestion is that they follow their own safety church policies and that they follow the guidelines set forth which they didn't do and that's an allegation that we have in the complaint terms of the conclus nature of that is we do if you read the allegations  dark that something has become well known over these last couple of decades is that you can't trust any adult to be alone with children in an organization whether it's a school whether  sexual assault two years later but according to this safe church policy yes it would appear looking at the actual policy and it's the no if not the actual rather that even a single incident would require a single incident of violation should require additional investigation i'm not i'm not going to be ok here to alleges different examples of what is inappropriate ok and so all of the oh examples all depending on the context would be pretty alleged in the complaint that allegedly you know either we knew or should have known about and i don't know how you can look at those allegations in say well we know that the  sitting there in council referred to it and you know you you write the brief you review the record you want to know in some respects i'm going to polkas ok so you know i didn't have this case in the trial court i can't speak ok he did see the interaction in the vacation bible study and he said i was posting the confirmation incident the only thing he saw was the violation of the two adult policy when there was of course we don't know exactly when but it's in paragraph two forty three when coach of the underage members of the youth group video i think called the rainbow video about being minor girls  paramount importance in particular importance is the protection of children from sex offenders and sex offenders use the internet on a regular basis to were children to solicit children to groom children hated no prior relationships with children and there's no allegation that at least as of may two thousand and one he was hired he was actually visiting those sites or how long or how we would have known f s because they're going to be one and with kids proof if this ever gets to trial the debt buying expert that for years before the events on june twenty thirteen this could have happened there may have to be that proof but  this is a serious problem and maybe we don't hear this we have a greater awareness of the problem down the we have two decades ago ok well in each case you have to often have other members of the parish who are younger participating but that's where we have to we have an additional alleged violation where there is the call that the kind of doubt and this is just was just to get it right it was just one time the door was open there were there was a mr cohen and a young girl in his office without a second adult how many of these as you phrased him innocuous things i want to you may say i want to thank the court this morning for giving us the opportunity to argue i know this is a difficult case and i don't mean to suggest otherwise but issues in an appropriate that could be if what you're saying in this complaint is every time you use the word inappropriate conduct all of those things happen the chief identified then i guess i understand the there still has to be someway for them to defend do they have to defend each and every allegation that you've defined in inappropriate conduct i guess is the bottom line question do they have to say that didn't happen that didn't happen or it was just you know people being people i think that's i think the problem here while it can be just one given  them names were specifically left out and what's not what's a part of the record that hasn't been discussed i had a motion early on in the case for discovery order because gets the truck controllability which is something we didn't discuss but that's the distinction but we do say that code was confronted and i think  that we have people confronting him about his inappropriate conduct and we have all of these things going on and we have the violations of the safety church policy it begs the question would reasonable cruden person have seen this an object of standpoint the answer to me is clearly yes i understand counsel's frustration i'm just as frustrated but for different things it's the other issue that i wanted to touch upon today was negligent supervision and the reason i wanted to address negligent supervision is because of what the elements are that require we bring up platts and let's not bring up as an example it was well known throughout the office that  april twenty times and after that and i told her twenty times the supreme court in her actually confirmed that there is a distinction between negligent supervision and negligent retention and set for th