finding that both parents were on unwilling or unable to care for the children the court could not make the children words of the court replace partnership in custody with the c s your public court's decision instructions on me man i the court and if the court determines that do monitoring the progress towards those issues for example in this case there had been regular visitation with the children the mother didn't have a simple custody at the time of the placement there were all there was also a mental health assessment that had been ordered that had not been completed and so is it is that basically your argument really you don't hear book an argument against the point of language as asserted by justice tice right you're not saying that the plain language says something different the the parent's right to the custody of their child showed that prevail when the court determines that is contrary to the whole safety invest interest of the child to three c that's the one you just as you've just been talking about or you're saying that basically trumps even the plain but the best interest requires the child to be placed elsewhere has a correct that is correct cases that are cited the state has a compelling interest these are children that have been just neglected and that brings the state's interests into into play and also that the parents are does not go on what were you mentioned earlier that there were other factors you know they constituted the rule a great outside of the fact of a finding of although there was a finding of fit parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children but again that right is not absolute and the state has a compelling interest when there's been an adjudication of abuse or neglect to step in and at this stage get this in the context of a new love proceeding  this is only a temporary infringement on parental rights and it's warranted particularly where as here seadrill protections are provided to the parents  the judge would indicate if the reason was for some mental health issues right disqualify milhouse issues because the state didn't give a reason right and the guardian in light don't said well there are some and what you're talking about would really go really to and we have a broader question here right whether or not with the finding of fitness whether or not temporary custody can be awarded to someone it's one step removed from that right it's where maybe we brought the that you could do it in the first instance where the finding of fitness and whether or not the judge abused his discretion in doing so that's a different question i agree with  but back to this situation what what happens if there was testimony in the testimony was from a doctor who indicated it was she's basically fit but she has to take her meds for another month or so before i foster placement that first person has never had a relationship with that child ever and so you're basically on equal footing in that regard terms of our time the other thing in this i think i'm more you know we talk about the statute and the overriding best interest and all that just thinking more public policy was in there this is a different case in that the state and the guardian both came in and said your client should be found fit right they actually told the judge your client should be thrown fit but yet he had at least the guardian addressed some mental health concerns and requested that there be the temporary custody i mean it is a one of those battles you choose to win or are fighting battles you choose to win and mean might not this provoke the next time in somebody else's case where they take the same factors and say and and pursue a finding of unfitness and now you know you have a respondent that's found you know if the if the judge goes along with it and the mental health issues temporary custody order was warranted they they would if we ruled your way have to put forth a case that indicated that the person the respondent was either unfit you know unwilling or unable and they would have to say that this i'm in this particular set of facts they would have to say that this emotional context and further emotional treatment as the guardian put it would put it in a position where they would have to they would have to assert unfitness to make sure that a temporary custody order was it in there are certainly free me i'm a real basic your statutory interpretation because of disposition or two twenty three a minor under eighteen restore the custody of the parent with perhaps conditions and emancipation those are the four orders the statute allows correct are the only possibility for placing the child is this two children with some one other event the mother here in america we all know the father is the one that the mother that we're talking about here in any case it in my wrong in reading this who want authorized kinds of dispositions the only way that the only one of those four that would trigger placement with someone other than th me and so because of the unique facts of this case the statute doesn't apply it says there are four kinds of authorized orders your grief is only one of those four would be under two twenty something and you're saying we've all agreed to twenty are so if if this court agrees with your argument today right whatever it was remanded for is really off the table is not  being unwilling or unable there's still a chance and room in that could happen ye decision that the child cannot be made a ward of the court absent a finding of unfitness and that placement and that guardianship emplacement cannot be made outside with somebody other than but yet you you agree if the ruling that occurred first if the if the decision had been made on whether it's not so they found out there's the trial court said the respond is unwilling that's just