to address the issue of jurisdiction and so i'll begin by stating there is jurisdiction this court does have jurisdiction over this appeal because the it's very clear from the from the transcripts the trial to hearing transcripts involved the judge wanted this court to to take this matter up and we've we've attached the transcripts in our appendix and we've we've quoted from them extensively the the judge at the trial judge had stated many times  surreal for a unfortunately that the trial court cited to go for b which i believe was was a mistake but in that the judge's statements make it very clear that this was to be a final  necessary to have unfortunate language in the appeal when there's nothing to enforce in this case there was nothing to enforce we had we had objected to the judge's question of subpoenas for victims sensitive instead of three or four and a and to deny jurisdiction anything and even further by denying just stiction my client can get no relief at all she can't the sixty six we believe it's clear that that the trial court was conferring jurisdiction upon this court to hear this matter our nd argument in th that the will county state's attorney does not have standing to be involved in this case because it was appearing in a private divorce case by the way the state's attorney's office their attorneys for the counsel for will county and they're appearing in this case on behalf of employees of a so i have a one c three nonprofit organization local government and the the six part of that tests is whether the organization uses government employees to conduct its activities well this is not true for the will county child advocacy center it is true for the state's attorney which is our main argument for why the will county state's attorney should not have got involved in this case the if the will county we we later on bring in an argument of the elation of due process of bias we believe that this fits the picture with with the the will county state's attorney who has a criminal prosecutor showing up in a private divorce case on behalf of the employees he doesn't have standing to represent question subpoenas that that my client is trying to get to protect her daughter from abuse and again we believe this this is one other reason that the that the the order question the subpoena should be overturned  record and the other previous counsel did also object to mr meyers presence in the courtroom and also in the case of page to page are forty five dollars in the record the the mere letter the not the mirror but the the the issue on appeal which is the question of the subpoenas for the victim sensitive interviews there was no evidentiary hearings from the very beginning  even when the cases and page county the child was removed from my client's custody placed with the father after the child had reported sexual abuse and there was never an evidentiary hearing of the shout never get heard in court the mother never got her day in court with respect to this issue the there was never an end camera interview with the child it was simply that you they very met item at the time saying that because my client reported what the child told her about her father that she would she should be removed and placed with the father and she was and then visitation couldn't even happen unless there was a therapist and so and every time we've tried to raise the issue or have an evidentiary hearing we were you know it's been blocked that it was blocked most prominently by the question of the subpoenas which is why we're here because the judge said i'm question the and the stanley versus owen i case makes it very clear a child cannot or a parent cannot have their their basic rights to their children removed without an evidentiary hearing and that's that's that's exactly what's happened the court had the court that i turn that i was the court had  sorry i lost my page  a case erica m versus christopher m in our briefs on page eleven this case makes it clear that statements made by a child relating to allegations of abuse shall be admissible and evidence in a hearing concerning allocation of parental responsibilities and even the abuse neglected child reporting act says further into purpose is directly connected with the administration of the act and the act of the point of the act is to protect of abuse children and to get the reports of abuse put before the court so that the court can act on them and protect the child and that's precisely what has never happened in this case the these these interviews were conducted the child was very open about the abuse which took place had been blocked my client even from getting some of the reports and has refused to do in camera interviews so this there's no way for this child to to get any act also states that access to records that necessary for the term in addition have been issued before the court shall be limited in cameron specs unless the court determines public exco public disclosure of the information is necessary for resolution of an issue this case the court has done neither and again that this is this is why we're here in this case but obviously we would have we would oppose any sanctions for the primary reason we we brought this in good faith were simply trying to protect a child from abuse for the smothering her child to get their day in court again we relied on the language of the judge in two different court hearings where she was on saturday that this court should address these issues after she  procedurally i'm going to be taking ten minutes perhaps allow and then mr meyerson the state's attorney will be taking the remaining five of behalf of the police hearing what mr cradock said i think it's important for this court to focus on what this case is and is not about this is not an appeal from a judgment or dissolution of marriage this is not an appeal from an order relating to the care custody or allocation of responsibilities of a minor child  crucis parental rights this is a routine an appeal from routine discovery orders entered in host to create dissolution of marriage case which is anything but retain didn't think the it made discovery orders thank you thank you for the correction so yes this is these are interlocutory orders entered in the course of discovery which you know is a matter of bedrock precedents are no sylvia cruz and darien crudes the will county state's attorney and that will county children's advocacy center are not parties there are no claims for affirmative relief set forth  either of them they were simply respondents in discovery who you know were asked to turn over documents in the course of discovery and objected to those requests and you know as we cited in our brief is not these are not final and appeal but warders under any stretch of these rules and you know i would add as well that in his brief counsel seems to be challenging a march orders and it is not properly before this court's now turning to the merits of miss cruz's arguments i'm going to defer to mr meyers on the question of standing and he will be addressing that but assuming that's miss cruz has not waived her standing objections which i believe she has may not raise in the below d i don't think there's any question that the truck court below acted properly and within its considerable discretion aquash in these it's important to know what was pending before the trial court at the time in january of last year january th team and the art of the only pending pleading before the court was miss cruz's amended petition for an order protection under the domestic violence acts and as she concedes on record page seventeen the document she saw it's in her st subpoena to the state's attorney were relevant to that relevance to that motion under of the abuse neglect neither of these motions provide a basis for the turnover of records which are entitled to a strong statutory presumption against disclosure the language of sessional in point one and makes it clear that the disclosure of these records are only permitted in limited circumstances quote in furtherance purposes directly connected with the administration of this acts there is no authority cited in either  briefs none presented before the trial court which the exact suggests that proceedings under the domestic violence act or the dissolution of marriage act are directly connected with the administration of this statute the next issue that mr is raises is appears to be constitutional and nature and this argument is anything if not muddled she accuses the trial court of violating her due process rights in a variety of race most of which have no basis in the record she cites being handcuffed i scoured through the record i couldn't find that anywhere i believe i would argue that these arguments are waived and assuming that they're not there's been no request a question of miss cruise's child being taken away from her these issues are not before the courts there's as it said before this is a limited discovery issue and i would finally notes this is the th appeal that miss cruz has filed in these proceedings all four proceeding appeals have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the nd district and most recently last year by this courts my client hasn't had to incur thousands of dollars in legal fees defending against each dissatisfied with an order of the trial court she appeals without any regard for the jurisdiction of this court or the or his appeal ability and for that reason those reasons or as i requested this court dismissed as appeal for lack of jurisdiction and than a county or a business saying well i'd like to be called will county because we're out not only do they are they established by statute but they receive they can receive portion of the tax levy and they can receive  is taxpayer funding or government grant money right your honor i do not i do not have the that answer is not part of the record and that's part of the way the issue is never never  got to that level because it was not raised i was not part of the office when that was created the five a one c three so i do not have an answer for you apologize that what we initially very interesting regulation and we never had argument this is mr craddock's argument as to one factor but it is a very interesting part of why your honor and perhaps if this does go back it would be an interesting argument but i believe on the balance the says that he subject a report can receive these records so he is not a subject of the she is the other victim nor the the perpetrator as defined by a friend section three it's clearly sylvia's attorney could not identify that in fact said it didn't matter at record twenty one it doesn't matter what or what matter it is she wants to see the teams that's clear that there is is the authority to bring in the abused neglected child reporting act into dissolution proceedings we did cite authority for those for this  for for this proposition we cited on page eleven of our briefs a statement from the case erica embers as christopher m that where it says of the dissolution act specifically pertains to hearings and addresses hearsay statements made by a child in subsection c which states previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of the child is an abuse neglect a child within the meaning of the abused neglected child reporting act shall be a skipping down a little shall be admissible in evidence in a hearing concerning allocation of runner responsibilities in accordance with the section eleven dollars of the abuse neglect of child reporting act now and then so that it's very clear these what we've subpoenaed is shall be admissible in evidence and this was for a hearing concerning allocation of printer responsibilities sylvia filed mergence emotion to two for parenting to and for to be the responsible the primary responsible parent and based on these reports of abuse that she received from her daughter we happened here without without these interviews there's there's nothing to present in the way of that evidence of of the abuse of the child and so that that that goes to the due process issue as well well yeah this appeal is regarding as you're getting these records so these records were saying based on especially based on the case we've cited which i just read from and based on the statute on six hundred and six point five  d the dissolution act we're saying these these victims sense of interviews are are admissible and and and we submit are necessary as well as for the  determine the allocation of parental responsibilities in this case which which was the motion that was pending before the court and i want to briefly touch on the issue of the the will county child advocacy center regulations the look county child have center is a nonprofit that is a five a one c three they their employees are not involved in government functions his office is clearly a government entity and we submit that there is an there is an extreme conflict of interest and as well as a a lack of standing but that we believe this it's clear as far as the the statutes are concerned that the statutes lay out the status of the will county child after the center of the will county state's attorney's office and what title one c three