submit you will not hear our more important case today because this case involves a child and as my case involves the custody of the child i submit that there is nothing that judges do that is more important i'm here today on behalf of that i am representing the few pampas but the reality of it is is i'm here because i am truly concerned about what has occurred in terms of her being removed from the care of her grandmother and how that was done now i have filed a brief and that brief sets out for really major arguments the number one is whether or not my client vicki pappas received appropriate notice of whether or not the child was going to be removed from her care and then wandered questioned whether or not what the court did that day was act in the child's best interest in removing that minor child from the care of her grandmother shortly thereafter we filed a petition to intervene that was denied and i believe that the court erred in denying that petition to intervene and my final argument is whether or not the court should have hearing into the issues that it believed were of concern to the court so let me first talk about the notice and the facts are set forth and i'm just going to very briefly i know that you all have read those facts but thirteen and she was removed from her grandmother's care in july of two thousand and sixteen her grandmother is the only home she had known the child was three and a half years old at the time her removeable and had spent all of that time with the exception of the first ten weeks of life with her grandmother there is no question and my brief sets it out and i reference the the record repeatedly every single report that was filed with the court be that some sort of status report be that any sort of document in terms of visitation plans family service plans permanency reports every single report said the same thing that grace was happy she was well established at her grandmother's home she felt secure that when she was there she was meeting or exceeding all  pmental line milestones she was blossoming in the care of her grandmother there was never a question about the child doing very well and her grandmother scare so in terms of the best interest of the child i believe the statute goes through a series of factors and i can go through those in terms of every single one of the statutory factors favor that child being kept with her grandmother now in my fax situation i go through some of the difficulties that the judge the trial judge and my client vicki patterns had and if it arose out of this issue with a casa and a casa is  individual who's appointed to walk through and assist the court the consul worker was appointed very very very late in the process but and if you look at the record and if you look at what the trial judge indicated the t worker was appointed to find out whether or not biological mom and biological dad were still having a relationship because they were denying they were having a relationship or pretty much everybody had concerns that they continued on in their relationship and that was a portion determination of their parental rights as to whether or not they continue to have a relationship with one another so the cost of volunteer was was appointed for that purpose my client vicki pappas met with the casa volunteer she went to the child's school with the casa volunteer she simply said i don't want the casa volunteer in my home now this really doesn't have anything to do with terminating the placement of the minor child except it explains it explains why the trial judge took the step and steps it up and i think it if you understand that and this was done a long time before the cost of volunteer was water under the bridge there were no problems and then they had to determine the mother the biological mother's rights were terminated the biological father surrendered his rights with a specific placement for adoption and that specific placement production routes with vickie pappas so with regard to that his parental rights were never terminated except for the adoption with vicky pappas so with that kind of gives you the  which correct and i understand that the court has the right to place but the court is still bound statutorily and i know this court is well aware that the only right that a court has to act is based on statute so we really do have to look at the statute here in terms of what the court beren why the court did it and i want to bring up a couple of things and that is the purposes if you look at the juvenile court act and what those purposes are the number one purpose is to secure for each miner the care and guidance as will serve the safety and moral emotional mental and physical welfare of the child and there's no question that with a child three and a half years old who has quite frankly your honor this had continued for in the court to look at how long this has continued and there's no question she allowed social workers into her home on a year by way up to every other week so every other two weeks the social work was in her home indicated that came up in two thousand and fifteen i cited to it because number one it's in the record and number two i think explains why year later a year later when we're on a different process completely it comes back up and so i think that that's important had the judge said at that time you let pass and or this is a problem but the trial judge didn't say that i'm simply giving that to you to give this court and understanding  understanding how we got to a situation where the trial judge and my client were were kind of adverse to one another and as a result my client with appearing at the hearings she told the social worker it's in the social worker report it in the record she said i know i upset the trial judge i don't i don't even know what i'm doing to upset the trial judge but i'll just quit coming because every it seems like every time i show up the trial judge gets angry with me so i'm going to quit coming that's what social worker said so in terms of her not appearing she did not appear in the july seventh of twenty sixteen hearing the concert issue had happened approximately in two thousand and fifteen so the issue then came back up and the judge was like ah well you know i'm upset about that but the consul worker specifically i mean just to tighten that up a little bit was a point for the sole purpose of determining whether or not biological mom and biological dad were still in the relationship my client had social workers the state's attorney numerous people in and out of her home and to be brutally honest it was just one more person and her thought was well it's one more person her thought also was she was not a trained social worker it was a volunteer not a train is this is all about and i'm going to bring you back to what this is about this is about grace this is about a child who was three and a half years old because of a little skirmish between a trial judge and the counsel oh i was the juvenile court judge for twelve years in shaping county i had all kinds of different agencies act think i might be half and one would do with wards of the court i want to hear about skirmishes from  the courts in charge the court just look out after wards court said this person i talked to checked on whatever this person want to do it that's it i don't understand what you're talking about a skirmish between casa work or the court early part of january twenty fifth then then we have a best interest hearing at the best interest hearing it doesn't come up again the judge moves to the best interest hearing there is significant testimony about the best interests of grace the parental rights are terminated biological father signs paperwork saying i'm going to allow the adoption by grandmother and so then he ends it at that point in january of tw interest hearing and i would submit to your honor that there was uncontroverted evidence at that hearing and you say yeah i think you are a juvenile court judge when is there a situation where it's absolutely and contradicted where actually if you look at the hearing on the fifteen i think it's june twenty third two thousand and fifteen they said we're finally at a position where we can put the paperwork together this is the c f s then p c s started putting that paperwork together and so she had to wait on them to do that she dismissed it but attached to the the motion to dismiss was a request that it be refiled in peoria county where she could do it in front of a different judge signed by a an attorney and the day of that hearing on july seventh she litum did not have an opportunity to be there in the morning they agreed to continue the case julia day this leaves so yes it was dismissed but it was dismissed with an intent to refile impurity town me that documentation was presented to the judge let me ask you this did the judge have a reasonable basis to be concerned as to whether or not your client was ultimately going to provide carmen c for his child no and i will tell you why because on july fifth there is a permanency report that is filed by the social worker that social worker indicates i have no concerns no more no longer clear there were concerns in the caseworker says i think that's clear of now i'm not concerned by the correct course the judge didn't have to adopt that view based on whatever information he or she receives i believe that that was filed on july fifth and the hearing was held on july seventh i think the judge had read the prior order i'm not certain what he had done with the social report or the report that was  addition today and volume twenty of the yes value twenty that is that july seventh hearing and that social worker also testifies at blame and when she testifies in that you she talks on and on about this is the best interest we are ending she she are there any concerns there are no concerns she is she is asked by the guardian ad litem she's asked by the state's attorney she's asked by the court itself but here i have to i guess kept me removed from  before she had she had and i want to go back to that portion of the act that talks about because i think it's very important the portion of the act the talks about that the juvenile court act is to be administered in the spirit of humane concern not only for the rights of the parties but also for the fears and limits of understanding of all who were here before the court and yes is it easy for the four or five of us to sit around and say wow she should have figured this now but i think that she had true concerns in true fear she was afraid of the judge she was afraid of what was going to happen and she in that fear was afraid and if the social worker she said her fear was that she was not moving the degree of about him at one point in time we was interested in having the grandmother wasn't i think from her point of view she did have a very real concern both that there would be concerns about the adoption she struggles that they had had in the past i think from her point of view her fears and her limits of understanding statute which is what we have to consider which the three of you have to consider is one whole is that she was truly concerned as to what was going to happen that was number one number two and she told the social worker i just wanted to be a happy occasion i want the adoption to be a happy occasion so she said i won't do the adoption in front of this judge if i have to do the adoption in front of this judge i'll give my grandchild no she was compelled i disagree with that justice and i'll tell you why i don't believe that that is what her rationale was i think she was afraid the child was going to be removed but then she said not that she was going to do it in front of the judge but i think the social worker suggested just refile it in another county just refile it another county now between the five of us why julia davis didn't file a motion for a change of venue from judge  d i don't know but she didn't and the bottom line is my client was very concerned about appearing in front of judge fitzgerald and what was going to occur and quite frankly the fear that it would be denied was  support for the claim that it was a social worker who told her to dismiss the case here both theory tony remember i believe her testimony on july seventh in buying twenty does state that i also believe that her report filed july fifth also reports that she i don't know if it says she suggested it but she definitely makes the comment that it is in the child's best interest that the adoption occur member or brotherhood in bloomington because i think of the concerns and the fears of mr pappas and so i think those concerns she was trying to a just address those in the terms of having me concerned about  correct but again and i started going to that then answered the next question about the dismissal with the refiling in peoria county but it does there was an issue where she had taken the cell phone away and there was an investigation of the purse teenage s was trying to get a different judge to hear it because she was concerned about it and i understand that and i understand you shake your hand i just but the bottom line is again what we're i'll just dismiss it redevelopment claim how me nobody raises any issues with her when she does that she leaves for the day then they have a hearing on on the second on the juvenile component of it but she appears in front of the judge and that is also in the transcript there's no itself seeking the dismissal references to refiling and attaches a signed petition to be refiled in peoria county so it's not to see if it's hanging out there nobody knows what's going to happen next the motion to dismiss mclean county specifically references and attaches to peoria only documents so i'm way out of time for late may they know they have a few shepherd there is no jurisdiction so how are you saying that this was not an interlocutory appeal request is that what you're saying i'm saying that it was an appeal of the final order yes and we didn't need that are here because there are cases that that recognize that there's a kind of gray area if you're trying to intervene and what is your status if they took more votes so you know we didn't we finding would not be sufficient to allow her to appeal the motion to the denial of the motion to intervene it should be yes but you're saying that was a final order well three or four whether it's under order that she was feeling was the september twenty second twenty sixteen order to deny her motion to reconsider the denial of intervention instead she said i'm appealing that september twenty second order to deny reconsideration o notice of appeal not only failed to mention the order that the party wanted to appeal it specifically mentioned a different judge and only that judge and that's not good enough it's not that there's no that's not sufficient to we have the same thing here i would say a step further in that the order that the that is mentioned in the notice is one that was never made smith was from this court i believe it was  prosecutor had a discussion with her and said this is what she said there was not her yes she also repeatedly delayed and eventually dismissed the adoption proceedings  she cancelled the adoption hearing a week before it was supposed to occur and then it was only took three months later she finally kind of talked to the caseworker about life down there and she agreed that she may be having second thoughts on  and supposedly just because she didn't like the trial court production the g a o l and the caseworker said why can't you just purchase a paid in this short hearing it's only going to be fifteen to thirty minutes thank you thank you i appreciate the time you guys are spending on this but let's talk about that notice and councils indicated the notice that we filed the notice of interlocutory appeal is insufficient i disagree i mean i think it specifically talks reconsider and i actually think there's a paper which should say and the court's orders of july seventh in august but the way it reads i see what she's saying i never understood the argument just this minute but i do think that this notice of interlocutory appeal does indicate that we are appealing those orders i don't and i think when you look at that i want to talk briefly about the smith case because it is a supreme court case the smith case it doesn't even mention the work it i mean it doesn't even mention that the  thousand and sixteen we filed a notice on october sixth and i don't know when the actual petition for leave for appeal and supporting legal memorandum was filed in this court but that was also done  appeal was filed i believe october third in this court and with regard to that that does set forth in detail everything that we were hoping to obtain from the court i would also note and i think it's in my record we were we never had access to this record until after the motion for an allotment torrie appeals granted we asked for the court to at least give us access to the records so that we could prepare and that was tonight as well so we didn't have  read it liberally and then the only other thing i was going to reference was so i do think the other thing is i i do think the notice of appeal excuse me the petition for interlochen tory appeal it's not as if we met a higher standard was being appealed and putting them on notice as the idea is that this puts on notice of what is being dealt with to a certain extent the idea that we did it the argument is that this was a final order asked my client and therefore i it was not necessary i would submit that an interlocutory appeal goes beyond what is necessary on a simple appeal and actually gives more indication and more information certainly our notice of appeal that was filed in the circuit