put is about the allegations filed by the state and whether the state met its burden its not about the trial court's interpretation of what this case is about or its take on how the arguments should have  was chad glover indicated and when was question notified about that writing so quick overview of the pleadings no doubt but i want to acknowledge that i'm not arguing that the pleadings were insufficient and said i'm arguing that the state failed burden only counts one in and three of the petitions were used at the trial court in the first count it's alleged that the minors environment was injuriously because christo was notified that chad can't have being abused because crystal out chad to have unsupervised access to her children again the key words here are after being notified by d c i pass that her husband is indicated not that he will be indicated or that the investigator is recommending an investigation or an indication so not one but both of the allegations direct parties to look to christus actions after the indicated findings so for example if the children were removed before an indicated finding was enter it is straight forward that the state failed to meet its burden skipping forward then to the order in this case the court issued a written order and deliver explanation of or from the bench we see in the rain order which is found in the an icon in the record on one twenty two where the court states the c f s has either indicated the report or was in the process of indicating the report and then when delivering her decision from the bench the trial during the trial judge stated on page twenty six of the record to me the issue wasn't when the report was indicated to me the issue was when did the parents have knowledge that they should be taking some sort of action with regard to their children that was not the issue presented to her she did not rule on that timing issue so who cares you might be wondering why the timing of the indicated finding was entered excuse me when the indicated finding was entered is important since the trial court did not mean that issue to be important the court found there was sufficient evidence to find chad was around the children unsupervised and that amounted to neglect however a ruling on this issue is not only important because of the manner in which the allegations were drafted in but it's also important because what christa knew when is tied to what is expected of her to keep her children safe and in her care due to the nature of process for indication as compared to criminal charges charges which were still pending at that time is just as much it is just as much person's right to believe that her husband is innocent of those charges as it is for chad to be presumed innocent until whether the parents of these children should be concerned that there's a chance that i'm arguing that the state elections weightings that were to look at what happened after that finding was indicated so while yes the specifically i can't recall if that argument was directly made in that clear of a fashion but i do believe the argument was made based on evidence that was presented for example a letter that was presented critical why is it enough to say we're going to respect you knew this guy was being charged being investigated that should be enough until you know there's nothing to charge to keep kids  believe the evidence show that she did take a live a lot of measures to ensure that when he was kicked out he didn't move out when that statement was made but because there wasn't agency involvement what we have is heard at the agency level on whether these allegations are true well we don't know what was going on the trial judge didn't know what was going on as to what brought this time eric says with these issues because there was no opportunity to appeal beauty level so they're maintaining that there isn't a problem they they christan chatter maintain there isn't a problem and didn't have an opportunity to speak for themselves i think a lot of the time i apologize wrong when an investigator comes in and takes work as protective custody of a child that's a serious charge both on the investigators part and on the parents part investigators have a lot of power in that letter wasn't sent until december that notifies the end of the indicated finding in their appeal rights with the time line that that appeal needs to be made i don't recall specifically but within thirty or sixty days so without something entered didn't he was always in a supervised scenario when she testified that sleeping overnight would indicate that he was unsupervised so that's her testimony and i countered that there is counter testimony to that from the children  correct but i would like to add that it was part of christus testimony that it was she felt it was her role to keep the children as unaware of the issue as possible so she did try to ensure that the children the child was around at night after school to help with homework and dishes but that he went to bat again always supervised and then in the morning it was her testimony that is mean that the children were told that he was had had work responsibilities and he wasn't around in the  so grand because the day the gravity of the weight of the ability of investigators to to remove children from the home and for investigators to be able to place individuals on the central on the states and to register for fifty years i believe the extraordinarily important that process is followed and that same day now this isn't in the record i'm speculating but it's possible that she wants into the computer and saw that it wasn't an indicated finding enter financial i investigation which prompted the the waiter letter it's possible that's not in the record so i do believe that we are are looking at two different dates and i do believe it's important that what mom knew when and if she is to believe that her husband is is taking those extra precautions but she didn't know that she was absolutely obligated to keep this man away from the children there was a roommate also in the home so it wasn't solely on her for example krista would be able to she testified that she didn't take a shower while he was in the home but she could never use the restroom there was a room another adult in the house in order to make sure these these children remain safe but also throughout the investigators efforts nobody was questioning but the children experienced a positive interactions with chad only positive interactions were observed nobody suspected that the children were being abused at any point there were several contacts between that first investigator she started investigating this case in july first she committed to being there every at the home every week and it didn't happen every week i believe you can after the first instance respond i had to call the c f s to say where are you expected you several days ago you've not shown up but i'm investigator was showing up from july first through the end of august approximately every week without any suspicion of of abuse the children by contest the kids testified about being in a loving relationship about the things they liked doing with their dad and with  she was doing everything that you set best asked her to do she believed that her children were safe she believed that the children were never in in any amount you did what she believe substitutes for the indicated finding just that that's when he indicated finding was actually entered and i i do maintain that meetings is is what should be the benchmark for what the state state was varying from the allegations all they argued was that and tell me got written notice there was no indicated fine if that's the exact piece of art was your state's position on the date of the responded personally and told her the defendant show had not have any access to the children should not be in the home for not have any there's no one supervised at that time sheet on august twenty first he told her no contact with well and that there was any contact whatsoever the child would be with the home a week later the group apparently was notified that yes he can have supervised contact with  stated defended respond with chad is accuser suspected of child sexual abuse i don't remember the exact language but that language of that nature was in each plan each play and said no unsupervised contact the first one specifically said no overnight stays otherwise the respondent was told all the different the language of the  phrase agreed to worth was different the plan was no overnight stays so as of july one responded knew that her husband was being accused of sexual abuse of a child she agreed to various safety plans that said no unsupervised contact and no overnight stays to say that the she was somehow when this letter arrived after the children would move is just simply not supported by the record she knew as of july one that this sex charge was hanging over her husband's head and children that the respondent father was in fact in the home over night from october her through december of two thousand and fifteen respond in a they had the true response test we say no he was never there unsupervised he was never there overnight so the trial court was faced with the credibility determination was there overnight contact and was there the evidence was clear that that indicated finding was meeting all costs and that if that information was percent probability to respond personally own long with a strict admonition that if you allow unsupervised access to the children the childer will be removed there can be no clearer notice to the responde of the risk that they were trying to prevent when there were four different plans he say no unsupervised contact and carson conversations it was still you cannot let him be in the house overnight it does because she knew the everest was clear that she knew by her own admission that the defendant was not that her husband was not to have any contact be the a hook to hang her of a a defense sort of speak saying hey i was never given written notice of anything so therefore i'm not required to do anything in time receive that written notice rather the notice or knowledge that the indicated fighting with wait here we have the respondent in person being told and the different we have responded also knowing that a criminal  indictment has been issued against the spawn of father being specifically told and august that there should be no unsupervised  months later ah there is no testimony a prisoner to blow regarding how fast or how or why the notice did not come out sooner in this particular case problems d c office nor for that the this type of notice problem is probably not that unusual but given the fact that the indicated finding basis of the indicated fine for a month prior to that responded have been given a written notice in agreed upon safety plan said no contact unless  supervised and this is because he suspected of being this is a child sexual abuser this is not a case of lack of notice or lack of knowledge on the part of the spawn as to what she was  she testified that she knew what she was required to do which was no no contact or supervised she also testified that she complied fully with that also really the trial court did not believe it's unclear he's right there wasn't testimony explaining why there was four months in between when this letter was going generated but again that never knowing when when that finding was indicated as important investigator britain is only able to make a recommendation about an indication she told this father that when they were together on the twenty first she said would be and it was her testimony that she could only make a recommendation staffing would then need to occur in order for that decision to between would be indicated between no one week safety plan it's very probable that she believed that over time after not hearing from even sooner than you can see that the investigation was closed without an indicated finding i don't think that's