argument today the first is the court is allowed to place a child in presidential fleet presidential treatment under section seven forty of the juvenile court act another just position that is available to the court yes detention in a detention center that period of detention ordinarily is limited to thirty days if a minor is in custody in a detention center the rule is well established that a child gets credit for all time spent in a detention center in probation revocation proceedings the rules for humiliating sentence credit are the same for adults and children in terms of probation revocation proceedings and have a recent thing in probation revocation for minor gets credit for all time spent in detention from the time that he was arrested on the original facts the chip mccord act doesn't directly define custody that it does so indirectly through three relevant provisions of the first of those provisions is that govern ition of non secure custody and that occurs when the minor is not physically restricted by placed in a locked room or cell or being handcuffed to a stationary object in contrast  defiance detention as just the opposite as a building secure facility where the minor can be locked in a cell or room and handcuffed to to stationary objects at juvenile detention homes also are custody focuses on restriction of freedom of placement in a an institution designed for incarcerating individuals has always been considered custody in the state of illinois regardless of the label ago i was in the franklin county detention center which is in the fourth fifth judicial district they run a treatment center out of their detention center there but it's not a building secure program to go to that's as close as i can get for  and the conditions in this case need every definition of detention children are kept in locked cells that look like traditional jail cells their movement is restricted they're not allowed to leave at will they wear the same and in this case there's absolutely no segregation from these detention program minors and any of the rest of the general population with the general probably population kids their cells are interspersed with general population that's where their treatment who really need to serve detention serves and they have no special t but yeah that that is absolutely correct do they mix them the one thing i wasn't clear on are you know when they're having their group sessions are they mixed in with the detention kids on their the record is not necessarily clear on and there we know that they're mixed in with the general population for every other purpose and we know that all children held in the adams county detention center are eligible for treatment if needed so effect child in the general population is in need of mental health counseling they have retained a mental health counselor who will provide services to the general population child but they don't guess ingo that they run some group sessions you know where the kids sit around talking to the facilitator yes i think but there are example there's nothing in the record that says whether those are combined the program people in the detention people correct correct they'd call this the program is labeled a treatment program but when asked to describe the program it's more properly characterize ninety day behavioral modification program arab lots of ways to modify human behavior without providing treatment and it appears that that's what adams county is attempting to do here christopher skase christopher was a child who very clearly had some substance abuse issues and some real troubling issues that home and the response was for the treatment coordinator to sit down with him and talk to him about why it's important to listen to authority and fill out some worksheet something why you shouldn't him they did not it's interesting if you look at we in this appeal we are arguing only the issue of sentence credit these are children who do not want to go back to court for any reason probably understandably but if you examine the record in christopher it's not surprising that there is no notice of appeal he was not at monash at any point that he had the right to appeal anything he was not even admonished of the potential sentence that he would face to face in any of the admissions that he entered so that that that there are substantial issues related to this case in terms of cases are handled there right and i think that that's probably the most straightforward explanation is that there were there were no appellate admonitions  at the time being but i think you know in making the record that his attorney was thinking in advance if this is the going to be the disposition then we're going to feel it and then nothing happened to that and i even assuming the detention center treatment program yes concern the minor maybe concerns that he might not have the best outcome if he challenges what the words are doing in the case of so for whatever reason and we're not privy to what th out of department of juvenile justice and his entire sentence he had been discharged completely just charge from the department of juvenile justice before the state's theory was filed in this case so this is one of those instances where no matter how hard the attorneys tried to get this case before the appellate court it will almost certainly be moot in every part in every particular case the issue of the unauthorized imprisonment of children is an issue of important public policy the supreme that the trial court believes that this is not custody all that the truck leaves that this is not custodial putting these children in this in this program so he's going to continue not to word sentence credit my children said it's not tension do have before you the issue of sanctions right if you find that this is detention now for purposes of sentence credit it will necessarily follow that the thirty day cap applies detention is detention is and the thing is as you're stuck with what the juvenile wants to do and if the juvenile doesn't want to appeal for what ever reason that the juvenile doesn't want to appeal that's what you're stuck with it's not council's decision to file the notice of appeal and take this issue up and down because of that because i think of some of the problems that arise with with with juvenile appeals and the fact that this is this that this is a systematic deprivation of liberty that is taking taking place in this county beds and nutritious food and a base level of treatment i don't know necessarily that they're looking at how long your kid if they're keeping kids are actually part treatments aren't some of the dollars coming from federal money so is that and it's against the franklin county program which is the treatment program where the treatment takes place in the detention center but it's not building secure treatment center i don't know that this is an issue that anybody's going to stumble across who's doing an inspection the juvenile court act being a being a statute but yet there's no reference to the words custodial detention actually used in the statute that they cite they're actually mill being used to separate concepts one of custody and the other detention citing different only then that sort of different because then they talk about if there has to be a need to show that while their legal status is hust you wish means that their argument that the implication of that argument would be that if they fail to return if that they could be prosecuted for escape if they fail to adhere to the terms of whatever movies that they're permitted how long is it before they're allowed the privilege of working in the facility i'm not sure the answer to that there the respondents to show that they were in fact the legal status of custody which means that they would be subject to escape and if they want an advisory opinion on this topic to show that that they're legally in custody then then they essentially be asking for this court also ruled that they could be subject to escape prosecution for minors in this situation that's the advice opinion that if they didn't return to the facility after a home visit they could they be subject to having the inclined to revoke their probation it's a different question as to whether they're legally in violation of the of the escape statute because so you think that's the only factor a court could look at whether they could be prosecuted for a school if they were to escape back to fines whether you're custody or to get out only if it's one it's one thing and it doesn't really seem like they are there also there one or two reside there and it just happens to be the place that other just that detainees happen the bit of the fact that it's made it a it's a it's a condition of probation the response haven't shown an argument to say that well if the trial court orders of this condition of probation and therefore it is legal there's a lot though i believe the records show that but there are some technical differences that they are treated differently and they call it they call it treatment not essential so that's the issue that's the issue is despite whatever they choose to call it the trial court calls was that because this was of her initial first impression no conflict or disagreement in the why is this any case resent any question about that they also said us no precedent exists on this issue states equally seeking a purely advisory opinion on the question of law is that justice freeman was in the minority on this question he was in the concurring opinion not in the majority opinion and this fact no three talks about how the court seems to be differing drifting towards using conflicting authority tast as a surrogate for what he calls the actual we're three brief points one of the question of tension versus custody this case the state wants to divide that inquiry and i just would like to reiterate the discussion before that the definition of detention in the juvenile court acts talks about building secure facilities and every building secure facility where a minor is not free to leave constitutes custody on the second point the state argues that the minors  necessarily that checked to escape prosecutions this was an argument that we addressed in various al's reply in this case there is testimony and christopher pease record where the probation officer record page fourteen derrius record as common law at two twenty four that's in the stipulation that the state entered into in both of those instances this there is a stipulation that that the minors are not free under any that's correct and finally if the escape statute itself talks about a person adjudicated convicted or adjudicated delinquent for an act that would be a misdemeanor committed by an adult who intentionally escapes from a penal institution or from the pub stiddy of an employee of that institution commits a class a misdemeanor so that covers both the kid who's able to scale the fence and it covers the kid who wanders off from being in for one from one of these community outings where he's in the custody of the detention officer and he leaves if it fits the statutory definition of the offense of escape and then finally i'd like to briefly address the move message issue to say cases where the supreme court has talked about issues of first impression and why there are no and there are no particular conflicts in the case or all cases that involve issues where appellate courts need guidance and the state referenced people be all green in particular in the adoption of walgreen and in that case the supreme court declined to reach the issue because there was a plethora of staff well established case law on the particular issue that was decided and the supreme court found that in future cases in when these adoption proceedings come through that if a party wanted to raise this issue there would be plenty of time to raise the issue because adoption proceedings move so slowly in contrast there is no such slow movement here in this and robert in way robert f this or recognized you were dressed up while noble population mentally ill and the question of whether they could be lawfully detained or not