there is probably no more primary right in art history in our tradition than the privacy and family atomically rights they're protected will interest under the constitution one of the case t which is a lot with a history in tradition there has developed are steps to due process rights were rights of association and privacy rights with between as a family the question may arise here whether there is a family when we have grandparents and it's not just grandparent but there's a foster parents as well and if you followed the smiths time what you had was mean parents who yes i think it does compare a constitutional right to due process b so you have a family following smith's first family and you have a foster situation they are in fact foster parents as well as being grandparents and they had this long after they got guardianship there is no counsel is critical in this case and during the time that the children were placed with the millers or any of the if you tell again there obviously can be no deprivation there was no abuse allegation there was no placement on the case and they had custody of the children when the mother returned in the september nine hundred ninety five she was granted visitation and the mother petitioned for the children to be returned to her in one thousand nine hundred six and in hundred six reunification and services were again granted to her there had been she'd been in and out of the children's lives and they had been with the millers for a good bit of that time but reunification services were granted to the mother at that time at that point in time the children were a ward of the juvenile court and the mother had a significant parental natural parent interest in those children when these allegations of abuse are rose those rights are paramount and those rights are paramount to any other rights that any other family members or other alleged abusers the millers aren't the only ones who are denied visitation during that time all of the other men in the children's life were denied visitation during that time as well while the abuse allegation cases where the purse parents have a right and the grandparents have a situation where they have living in the home or have other dipak their parent type status of course when i didn't write the cite each case off the top of my head but i see the cross the reported in case i did in our brief and it has tampa the proposition that it is well established that parents have a liberty interest in raising their children and that does not extend to the constitutional standard that rose to the level of a liberty interest protection that would meet the plus standard or at least travel is just back from the plus standard for the trier of fact to determine in this case that deprivation was not at the same time as the alleged stigma and i would think there would have to be a next it's between the two there would have to be a nexus in order to find a stigma plast case under the pommie davis standard between the alleged stigma and the alleged deprivation and that's twenty remedy for him to remove his name administrative meaningless from the administrative determination i would assume that would be a good start unfortunately the state of california was dismissed from this case very the district court found a credible issue of fact with respect to stigma and therefore the case decided by plaintiff demonstrating the stigma are really unnecessary in this case the entire analysis before you judge it is really whether or not  adequately articulated a plus standard parents are simply not grandparents who have a constitutional interest the same way i regret grandparents are simply not granted the same constitutional protections that parents are particularly whereas here when the alleged abuse was taking place the parent was involved the parent did in consultation with county authorities make the determination that it was not appropriate for visitation to continue at that time and therefore the miller's interests during that time period w directly adverse and contrary to that of that's the mother and the interest of the natural mother and the interests of the state and protecting the children from any potential further abuse are paramount and override any interests that even if the grandparents did have a constitutional force to review the the due process the reporting staff you and they have been meeting in the past two years on numerous occasions and have actually the draft a proposed amendment to the penal code that says by the due process concerns with regard to the reporting statute and i think that it's never going to my client's deprivation of procedural due process because what you have here is the the county of government officials using a state statute the reporting act to deprive him of any visitation any custody any contact with and after post the conclusion by the police department and sutter county c p s that there was there is no basis then is that that point that the millers go to you the county say look