how much time you want for rebuttal and please remember this is the cell street it's noisy keep your voices loud so that we can hear you because you're going to be competing with the traffic forensic interview as the attorney and guardian ad litem for the children the public guardian has a duty to protect the truth both the children's legal interest and their best interest and under the illinois supreme court rules the public guardian is entitled to access to all relevant documents concerning the children a public guardian could not sign a protective order that it did not allow them to keep a copy of the children's for any forensic interviews because the forensic interviews contain the children's own words and the children's own images concerning their sex to me i was kind of after the case is over well you need to keep it if during the course of the case during any hearings the trial even the appeal you can have it you the order just is to give it back after the appeals of the case doesn't end for the children at the end of the trial or the adjudication in the disposition of hearing on the children as i said twelve nine and seven potentially their cases could be open in the juvenile court until they're twenty one years old that the forensic interviews would be needed for it could be needed for issues of their p t concerning the children and couldn't get them still i mean didn't the judge local records act the local records act the fines a record as receipts of use of public funds and so certainly the forensic interviews don't need the death and and of a record under that act and because nothing requires children or in the alternative to remand with instructions to allow the public guardian to keep a copy of the forensic interviews and to also be able to share the forensic unit views with his agents as he as needed in order to preserve the children's because the public guardian doesn't actually have a copy of the child wanted to come in and actually see the interview or to get information from the forensic interview it's not in the public guardian's file and it you mean after the case or during the case we did have good copy during the case of his time in the us we can't sign the order because it requires us to give up all access to it in the future i understand what you're saying the court to get it back for the child for services for the child or for any legitimate purpose you just come to the court but there when the when the trial court entered the protective order there's nothing and they're the forensic interview doesn't just capture the child's words about their own abuse it also captures their demeanor to the questions that they're being asked and again these are things that the to not being able to keep a copy not having a copy for preparation for trial is an unreasonable restriction and these particular cases the public guardian did in fact the reasonable restriction the children need to take and confidential place to discuss their views in preparation for trial and the public guardian cannot confidentially review the forensic interview with the division yeah i had it i understand it's just something that may possibly happening with future there for you one that is correct the division secord and the state state claimed that public guardian could move the trial court ex parte to make an additional copy of the forensic interview if he wanted to consult with an expert witness an expert witness about the case when there is no authority that allows a public guardian to have ex parte communication with the trial even if the court granted it the court would have to order the state's attorney to give a copy to the public guardian to make an extra copy which again is revealing the public guardian's trial strategy the state's requests for we protect the border concerning these forensic interviews is a fairly recent development and international court in the past the public guardian this state has given the public guardian as well about the other parties a copy of the forensic interview the public guardian has always safeguarded the forensic interviews is never lost control over forgets interview and we don't know if somebody loaded it or copied a part of it while they were looking at i think that's what the orders were directed to not that you would do anything to it but someone that you'll have to have access to it might duplicated in this child might have what happened to them spread abroad  to make any of his agents comply with the with the conditions of the protective order the rules of professional conduct require the public guardian to protect all of the children's information and file not just the forensic  contain minors medical records the parents medical records children's they are people port's parents therapy reports so and he is responsible to protect all of that information and he can secure it as i said  this case it just was no need for a protective order from this first district recent case the fish here we respectfully disagree with that decision and that decision is not in a criminal case the children are actually parties to the proceedings and they are being denied access to their own statements and images with regard to their own child abuse even in the in re d p and the new jersey both cases to even though the parents in that case and the criminal defendant in that case for not allowed to have access to the sensitive material the attorneys were not the night access to the material in the stoles case the criminal defense attorney had to name a clinton era showing that he could keep the sensitive material safe but once he had made that showing the court ruled that he was allowed to have a copy of the material and complete access to the material children only or in the alternative to remand cases with instructions to allow the public guardian to keep a copy of the forensic interviews and to share the forensic the forensic interviews with the agents as needed in order to preserve the two children is not a mark this is just recorded by his son oh thank you ok i'm during the discovery process and these two cases that you about court under protective orders that accommodated the needs of counsel representing their clients but that also included reasonable restrictions to minimize the thing it's what i know is that it's an office wide policy and that there are other sections of the office as well that are that these protective orders are are being entered in and i know from the format of the protective order that one of the say is that when the assistant state's train was asked in the record that kind of question she said this is this is an office wide policy we have been doing this this kind of order has been entered in previous cases and even in this very courtroom and no one contestant that so am unfortunately emitted by what is in the record there the this court would only alter the parameters of the type of work on appeal if there had been an abuse of discretion meaning that no reasonable person could it's it can be for the purpose of prevention the rule says it allows the court to enter a protective order as justice requires limiting conditioning or regulating discovery to prevent unreasonable annoyance expense embarrassment disadvantage or pressure so what d is you know as opposed to the same information contained on paper it's uniquely susceptible to reproduction and i understand that paper can also be put on the internet but for people who might want to abuse suggesting that the public guardian or any of the attorneys intended of his discovery so there was a rationale that one lawyer would have to go to another lawyers office in order to secure information about their client or to view it from a show about their  press and what is the rationale for why which that bird would be placed on the lawyer for the children to have to go to the oh boy for the state to their office in order to they didn't offer that on this record and so that wasn't something that was available to the court perhaps if they come forward and explain what their procedures were that maybe the court would have felt it's not necessary but we're not just talking about public airing we're also talking about the attorney for the mother the at attorney for the legal guardian in each of them are entitled to discovery and so if the public guardian had been the one to secure an order of protection in order to protect these records the state's attorney's office would not have been a mediate ly in opposition to that having to come to their offices in order to review these materials well as a lawyer one from one lawyer to the next i mean i have trouble with that hypothetical because the d v d essentially is our rec order and receiving our own copy to use in preparation for trial or of having to go to the public eye which is trying to see the fairness of ok i think that  for a certain period over which time period of time for a friend an indefinite period i'm in a little bit of an awkward position because there is a document that requires us to keep for certain period of time the local records act is the term so we're not allowed to destroy those records and we do keep them for a very long time and then the public guardian and any other party that signs a protective order and returns their d v d when the case is over can be assured that that's attorney's office where they're kept together in one secure location rather than staying in the files of the various attorneys that needed them at one point to prepare for education and the court did explain how to get a copy later if that was needed that that provision in the protective order cases the public guardian chose to take a stand against the protective orders that the juvenile court was uttering to protect his clients and he's entitled to do that but the position he chose is not reasonable and the protective order is reasonable so where we're asking that you find there was no abuse of discretion so i do believe this court has jurisdiction and this to hear this case under rule three zero seven the state is correct that in the past there have been protective orders in the juvenile court regarding the forensic interviews but the protective orders never prevented the public guardian from keeping a happy of the forensic interviews that is what is new about protective orders and again the public guardian is willing to sign a protective order that allows him to keep a copy of the present interviews in the children's  files the protective orders in this case put the public guardian between a rock and a hard place he has to sign he has to agree to give up the protective order in order to get it in the first place and i am asking this court to