an allegation made in a in a pleading opening pleading that the social workers in this case represented to the court that the parents either were not available or did not wish to have their kids examined and more importantly t wrecked well nothing in the order and it is true and i start with the fact that the order is says the county of san diego health and human services agency has made reasonable efforts somebody had to tell the court that the health and human services have a ok i'm sorry i don't have the i don't have the e o r in front of me but there is a detention report in the record it also that detention report is absolutely silent on the issue of the physical exam of the children so the question is the haitian is the allegation is that the the social workers in the represented orally or in writing to the to the court that the things that you see in this is the nd emetic complaint but we really only had one ruling from the court before the ruling dismissing that case without leading to a man and in that st in that st ruling the court seemed to focus of the district court seem to focus a felt and so we went through the you know the you know explanation of why record film it didn't apply were not actually challenging the courts were challenging the deception of the court similar to the prior case where the correct correct very question is whether on its face the complaint adequately argues alleges judicial deception correct  paragraph twenty of the complaint we started three hundred and twenty four we list all of the obligations that they had that we probably should have started that with and listen jamison were the only two people on this case that you could've made any representations to order and so the reason we added the and ordos one through fifty is that it's possible that listen jamison had a conversation with another social worker who then told  that but that doesn't really matter because if listen jamison told those other social workers to tell the court that these parents you know either were they able or didn't have didn't want to have their kids examined and  had had the conversations and relayed false information to that which they then repeated but didn't have any pictures patient in the falsity well your honor there's no way that anybody else would have done that because the answer is the answer is probably yes but the problem with that is d nobody else had any conversations with the social workers or with the parents other than these two social workers from the th of march to the nd of march in the physical into place there were no two social workers that could have made these these representations we can certainly put it because they said that there were no facts well i just listed a few of the facts they were the only people filing documents they were the only people that were at the that other issues that were raised well you know it's not a notice that the exams are going to take place after the court signed the order but you know council has you know knowledge that you know that they have three days to do that by the time they would have gotten that discuss the matter with the court and just as importantly not having the ability to be present and so that's it but we can certainly add you know much more in the way of context for that for the court if given the chance to efforts and has it not it has your honor and we think that that under these circumstances of abuse is abuse of discretion mainly because we could have added we could and this court this ringback court has said on numerous occasions it should be granted if it appears at all possible that the point of can correct the defect and the defect here is that the court said that there weren't enough facts to for the court to say that these particular social workers were the ones who gave this misinformation to the court and i think that now you know it's would you agree that the district court did not analyze this case in terms of judicial deception and i usually violation did not address judicial deception do you agree with that i mean i'm not sure i and i agree or i think that what they i think that they said that they didn't know me she couldn't tell whether there was judicial deception she just said that you know there was not enough there weren't enough facts to determine whether or not list  and and jealous of were the ones who deceived the court i mean i don't think there's any question the parents had a right to have a due process hearing if they were if the corporate was going to order the examination i don't think there's any question that her right to be president absent an order from the court certainly couldn't be which takes me to the issue of the middel claim and again i think we can we can correct any defect in line by adding th facts and and this court has said time and time again that we should be allowed to do that with her until i think that it's pretty clear if you if you look at them all season practices that were that were put into  that is and you know they have it they say and if there is an exam do you want to be president will try to make it present there is no such a policy or ready no such provision for if a court order court's order for the physical exam or challenging the fact just like in the last case the challenge in the fact that they use deception to get this particular order what they did was they you know they they told the court all of the things that were in what was alternately signed by the court and that's the allegation remember we're still at the pleading stage here i mean we've just we've made these allegations and the and the allegations are supposed to be taken as true so are our position has always been in the actually says about the section because there were some arguments just now in the briefs that claims that my clients and specifically the two social worker defendants made misrepresentations of the court and if that were t in the alleged to the court what ahead and sign that form order there's nothing here about any affirmative misrepresentation as well as or didn't tell you why isn't it a reasonable plausible inference from those allegations that when the court makes findings that are not true and it does so based on the application and representations of the persons who requested it that those persons didn't give the court truthful information why is that not have a plausible inference well you're this there's two issues and the st is that the allegation is as to list jemison and or  he said that he could amend the complaint to say there was no one else involved so it's just those two they were the only ones to sign into the case so it's them he sees essentially said he would he would amend to make that allegation so wide can we infer that one of them or both of them made false representation in the court that caused it to make findings that are untrue but i think you would have problems making out  the juvenile court file and they haven't been able to identify any misrepresentation and really importantly i think was well let's say we took out and work i was when we took that out i permit which i understand to be that they submitted this piece of paper that says the following which is a representation that one of these facts is true and i asked the judge to sign it so why  me to to return to that the posture of this litigation were at the complaint stage now you're making arguments as to what the facts ultimately might reveal the o and you may be correct but the question now is really isn't it whether the complaints survives a challenge twelve b six challenge is enough in the complaint allege judicial deception in violation of rights is in that case i think yes i think that go back to what i think is really before you do that before you do that i just ask the question about the state of the record that we have  i think this case presents an even stronger reason to affirm its missile and its because number one discovery has already happened and number two really importantly and this is a line rather fell in the problem which is that  well they would need to there's two points to the reconsideration and they need to vacate the order of the state court before they pursue relieved in federal order that's the basic concept of of record feldman is there's also a special edition of your which is that that medical authorization order it wasn't a one time authorization of these polling ski examinations but their national it be the removal of the child all the way through a final determination months and months of litigation represented by counsel the child was never was and by separate counsel so they wanted to mount a challenge that authorization they can done so in state court they also took it to the th district court of appeals and you get all the way to a near its determination so this is a case where plaintiffs not only had the opportunity to address the state issues in state court they addressed other issues but declined to address the ones they're now bringing to the federal district court and now this court in the st it's an appeal i just want to ask about the record our you're not asking for judicial notice you're challenging the district court's refusal to exhibit this to consider this exhibit k we're not challenging the district court's determination with respect to what did you claim about that document below as to why you saw didn't it if i'm reading it correctly it seems to say mom consented i don't know what any of this means that that's that's correct the document which  is is not any policy of accounting with the really claiming is that individual social workers violated county policy it's that it's sort of the conceptual inverse of a mono claim that it just doesn't fit there and again i think actually addressed this on the branch and which is that we did needs to find a chase addressing very closely similar facts and given this gatlin there's actual occasions we presented  x y and z happened by presenting an order an answer the judge has on and that x y and z were not true what else would he have to know you know that it was a different section constitution well because we know that believe i think it would fall under the qualified immunity line of cases that say that government officials get breathing room to make mistakes and submission or warm one form order that has some we could also add you know with reckless disregard as pointed out huge katzman and comply we have we have said all along that the social workers that their clients had no knowledge of either the and they never got an order from signed by the by the judge in this case we didn't get that until we got some records from juvenile court as a result of this lawsuit so that was the st time that we were even aware  should d you know we can we can certainly mean tighten up the complaint but i think even without that i think that you know as you said just that we have we have a lead that you social workers live had that that