with the lawyers please approach in the and reduce your self to those who are going to argue the case good morning your honor di and read leaf on behalf of bernadine l morning c you know because we have so many case we're going to have to hold you to the time limit of fifteen minutes will you notify me when i'm getting close well look i see there's no there's no like oh there's no little love light or anything but we have the facts in ok we are well acquainted with them so but and i understand that you're challenging what the circuit court judge did in this case absolutely and the question is what what should the judge have done instead given that it seems like everyone was out there with sand to help rico and help bernadine in being able to live together well the posture of the case is important because it wasn't set for a change of dispositional order it was set for a status hearing and there was no emergency so the first thing that the judge should have done is to take the status report well and let's let's  recommended disposition was and in fact the only recommendation that was in front of the court as to what the hospital thought should happen was that he should go home when he was ready and in fact the d c s and there were has worked he's at home because of an order that was entered june correct and in june i think the judge made it very clear that if the conditions for his being at home were able to be met that certain consequences would follow and i think right why isn't that simply sufficient to allow the judge to act the way he did on september twenty seventh given that his conclusion was that that was in the best interest the group though if there had been no violation recording device that i'm sorry i'm sorry ok judge your honor if there had claim that the child and cannot remain in the home well don't forget this is not a filed this is not in order of protection and that's because this is a different type of order is the supervision order correct placing the parent under the supervision of the probation department to make sure that certain conditions are follow so it isn't that it isn't the sort of protection order that you're referring to so there is no violation of it is that the record is simply to have to rico stay in the hospital until he could get a report that's not our position our position is that would have been a reasonable way to proceed if there was less so now that now they were at the point where we're at what's what's what's the  rico in the hospital those that led to the blowup in august at the home i'm just how does going back for you know these procedural steps to be begin to help anyone position they have searched there is no way he has found no authority your honor to say that that it's acceptable whenever the child has a problem in the home i'll build a serious problem that we take custody from  parents that leaves the child completely and yes it is it is there is there in fact a different treatment of those parents that are adoptive parents and those parents that are have children born to them i would say absolutely not and in fact in this case the system itself from a streak of permanency and that's what the system took from him i mean his best interests in being in a family but involvement of the c f s arises from that point of a problem they've been rico has been under the seat as supervision for a long time and to that extent maybe there is a difference and maybe judge i think that would be very problematic as a matter of policy to say that there was some level of higher level of intrusion into the family that's an adopt her whether whether her position was that all the services that have been provided up to the point that september twenty seventh hearing had done what everyone hoped would have done that is correct or assists rico in living in a fairly normal home life at home and she admitted that the services hadn't provided the the relief that everyone thought they would and then she was asked well what more can can be done and she says i don't know and the judge went so far as to say you know he's in the same position as bernadine that he's not sure that what more can be done and so what are you saying can be done approach judge a couple of answers to that first of all not all the services had been attempted and and at the time of the hearing there wasn't even a report as to what the clinicians were recommending the services should be sacked that late the fact that burnet being can't necessarily manage all the papers doesn't mean that anybody else can either and it's been well documented that he doesn't necessarily do better in a hospital setting or even  in any other setting include exactly the judge made clear his concert his concern was that if rico's at home bernadine could end up getting hurt a grandmother could end up getting her daughter rico himself could end up getting hurt and that's a different situation than when rico is under supervised care in a hospital or in a and they appropriate agency custody where they're better able to deal with those situations what what are you saying that that what are you saying that that that shouldn't have been done that that allowed the c f s to regain guardianship of rico so what shouldn't have been done is that the hearing shouldn't have proceeded to become a dispositional hearing and change of guardianship that's point number one well this is the fact that the judge had faxed that up prior dispositional hearings he set one in evidence as to these recommendations of the hospital first and foremost we didn't know why because condition was at the time and that was a prejudicial was that i would say so ok tell us what else we didn't have any  t there was no evidence presented as to earn a dean's inability to care there was no evidence presented as to rico was lacking in any care and yet she had a lawyer who proceeded to assert his own interests and his own disagreement with her position and didn't demand that the proper procedure be followed so that was definitely prejudicial because what resulted was in court or that basically deprive her and rico of that mr rangel argued against mr l's interests expressed lee said that he didn't think what she wanted was best for her and that was his opinion not hers and he also breach where the child is now how the parents thirteen is doing with rico given and the judge was intimately familiar with the entire history of the case right so if the hearing was set for sent us that that would cover i mean the court  the judge indicated that he was proceeding under an emergency basis that if he she would have been notified of what could have happened as opposed to proceed with you not making any such  and the plan of the mother was agreeing to was to return home from the hospital just the services that he said that's the suggesting which everybody could tell no one was really set aside for the services they were the same one same ones that had been in place when the whole episode happened where the mother ended up trying to this physical fight with rico and the police were called and he ended up in the hospital so the judge was not the judge held the parties in front of him rico was a ward of the court and he was the judge of up the dish and to make sure that all of the findings and orders that were currently in effect were accurate and were in repose best interests and as of that time based on the evidence that the judge was hearing the judge found that the mother was unable because the engineer when you say enable that also means unfai mother to take on a difficult job with rico and we understand that and it's possible that maybe nobody would be able to know no individual in a home could handle rico all the time but still there's a difference between being willing to take care of a minor and being able to take care  to give the witnesses an opportunity to say really everything is ok even though they're right for many services in place everything's fine this will be enough or the alternative to suggest to the court and to the c f s and the d c s attorney who was present as well the d c festival in you to be offering some different services and the direct examination by her counsel yes she had and in the course of that examination certain facts are brought up that they believe would assist her in achieving the end result that she confidence to bring up matters that should have been brought up well one of the haves and i just wonder whether those matters came up during the course of her examination by counsel and therefore objective was was a little bit broader than she's saying now but then that project also aster questions and that's when she said that whatever services had been rendered up to that point were not right for and question is what more could have been done that she didn't know she didn't know and no one was off difficulty that the trial court faced on september twenty seventh if it did not proceed is that rico actually the evidence was that rico had been ready for discharge on september fifteenth it was only because the d c p investigation of m about a very unsafe situation that had developed in the whole let me ask you if he was ready for discharge on september fifteenth and until september twenty seventh the remain in the custody the juvenile court that focuses on the best interests of children that is what it's designed to do what it and what the trial court did in this case the no one is disputing that parents have constitutional rights we're not claiming that a cell doesn't have constitutional rights within the context of the child protection committee where rico had been a ward of the court for about a year and a half at this  point that the parents rights are delineated in their observed in the juvenile court act if they want every single provision of the juvenile court act would have been held unconstitutional at this point so let's go to our justi regarding what you believe the best interests of rico were at the time and whether or not in the judge following those best interests somehow prejudice august thirtieth or thirty first that rico has been at the censored and had occurred and he had been psychiatrically hospitalized this hearing took place nearly a month later in the so so every all the parties were possibility and discuss with everyone that that more services were needed that it was you know possible that the court would find that rico would have to come out of myself custody as a result of the sensitive so that was disposition the court has to find the parent either unfit and or unwilling and or on able to parent child comes from what he did the other things so and if the charge limit his his findings to raise the issue of what what was the period what assistance or what resources were made available to the period to get her to the point where you believe she could have done better with rico when she was able to do i don't recall very much being directed at burnaby and to the to the extent that very few resources were directed at her i deal with a child that comes with a great deal of problems and it's tough to really say you know with a little bit more of an effort or a little more understanding or a little bit more knowledge or be a little bit more off should say where where the situation is safe enough for rico to return home we are not saying rick at this point the evidence does not show that rico should never return so it's still there it's just it's clear that there's been no determination of any no and there essentially that the situation in the home on september twenty seventh was was unsafe it was very unsafe they had a dysfunctional way of relating it was misspelled did not have the parenting skills that would a declaration by the judge that she is on the no that they public audience are the ones who use the term dispositional way under fifty and they distinguish that in saying that there's no constitutional law at stake which we totally disagree with in terms of th supreme court in this illinois supreme court has been over and over zealous about the custodial rights of parents and saying that fit willing and able parents should not lose custody of the state over their objection and the case we do allow parents to make that decision and sometimes and if they can't and if they don't then parents can be children can be in voluntarily committed over the objection of their parents but that's the process that should be applied not to remove the custodial rights of the parents you know sum up because you're pressured to judge the best interests factors were not looked at in this case rico was taken from his parents because simply because