and the mother of an additional named victor these questions have arisen in this case in the context of the notice provisions of the juvenile court act and its emphasis on the importance of the presence of a concern adult for delinquent minors the legislature of the state of illinois has found the presence of a parent or guardian and delinquency proceedings so important that they are mandated to be part of the process and are required to be served with notice they are literally s court in this case the state had a duty to provide notice to derek's father which they failed to do the failure to provide notice was error as the state has conceded yet the state argues that this  forfeited and does not rise to the level of play to her because geragos father would not have changed the outcome of the case the state's argument fails to recognize two things first the absence of jerks father meant that derek i had no adult present whose sole loyalty and concern was for her the presence of her mother the only witness against erika at her revocation proceedings could not provide this important role as she was the state's instrument of prosecution and had obvious concerns for her own safety and the safety of her other children in marcus wu this court recognize the great importance that  supreme court has placed i don't mind her having at least one person present during juvenile proceedings whose only wildstein concern is towards the minor but did not have that one person secondly the only sentencing options the court was presented with were probation at jericho's mother's house a place that the court itself referred to as volatile a sense of prison which is what derek receive the presence of jealous father might well have changed the sentencing outcome as he might have provided alternate probation place probation placement with either himself or another return a relative or you might have advocated impeachment treatment for derek  mental health problems were the only parent present was at the center of the continuing problems another concern adult would have made a difference in the outcome of this case any absence of his father the court should interest between the minor and his or her parent guardian or legal custodian all of that it is otherwise in the minors best interest to do so in austin the illinois supreme court stated the following concerning jails and delinquen proceedings when a guy did later is appointed delinquent superseding it is generally because there is no interested parent or legal guardian to represent the child's best interests in these situations t must act in the role of concerned parent which is often in opposition to the position of defense counsel this language recognizes the need for g l delinquency proceedings in the absence of an adult capable of fulfilling the role of concerned parent in addition it defines the scope of a jail's role under these circumstances to act in the role of a concerned parent goes juvenile delinquency history or records an almost constant state of conflict between derek and her mother concluding with erica's mother testifying against her at the hearing on the state's petition to revoke probation at that point derek his mother could not act solely out of concern for der her defense attorney who could only argue for derek has expressed interest in this case she only argued for jared to be given probation and placed in her mother's home a g a i might well have argued for placement with eric's father with some other relative or it for information residential treatment given derek his mental health history none of these other options could have been advocated for by defense counsel if there is only wish was to go home to her mother and brothers given the facts of this public and not the lack of adult supervision it's a different situation in the sense that there is no similar outcome probability that the outcome may have been different because the trial court was relying on different grounds a case where the minor has no parents at all and essentially what the response should tempting to do is shoot or in this case into the line of cases where minor has no parents but it wasn't the mother and then the syria decision to  appears to advocate that if a minor is charged with committing a crime against a member of the family that somehow it means that appearance is no longer interested enough in that minors welfare as a matter of law essentially advocating it it should be the state does agree that this should be decided on this on facts rather than setting forth a bright line rule that for example one of the victims of the battery with a child who is the mother of what is also a parent of and that somehow creates a conflict of interest because the mother then the argument would go others find it is concerned about the safety of family in the home and that would mean that according to respond she's no longer concerned slowly and actually a duty of loyalty to the child and the parent does have that same two to the wealthy and the sense that a counsel in the context of conflict of interests and per se conflicts cannot serve two masters is the rule and there's no showing here that somehow the mother was being asked to serve as you know it's two masters so it's not an apt analogy and the state leaves that on these cases are more complicated than and not conducive to such  and let them know you're wrong is what i'm really asking about is there a system in place in your office not necessary but that you would like a system where when you keep seeing these repeated issues i don't feel that some communication is made that seems to by publication rights so i don't understand why we keep seeing these cases and it's usually out of one particular county and that issue isn't getting a press i mean we have precedent our opinions but the state's attorney read there it just seems to me you if you started out right you answered a question if you know whether you know the mother was willing to accept mine or my recollection was that she was not that she said something like my child help or so i can't remember do you know i don't remember the specifics of that last hearing to be honest with you i think i know for certain that she did say she was willing to take their i don't know whether she indicated to the op trainers the course of these proceedings this is an issue of fundamental fairness and this child had no adult who was solely concerned with her best interest in these proceedings and she had a serious mental health problems it's quite likely that there could have been other places  somebody else could have advocated for a different place joe just wanted to go home and that's where her train and out of the case for but somebody else could have advocated something else and fundamental fairness requires that this child be give