here because of government databases again and i was recently in front of the ninth circuit on persaud born which is not reportable versus the county of santa clara point at this point he's out of tack all right so now he's in c w s c m s he's been in that all along that's the first main day to day do you know what it says about him in that particular so if you could just focus on helping me understand faddle shortly what's going on here there are over two hundred twenty one separate fields of information inside of you am does it say in c the us c m s that the report i substantiated i have no idea your honor they won't let him say that it's in there it doesn't matter what it says just being in there you're guilty just being in that seventeen exceptions to welfare an institution's code a twenty seven under the family child index all of the companies like l a county amassed and but but there are less actually i guess and let me make my question more specific is it the case that the agencies and officials who have access to c are all geared towards the protection of the miners no you're on what is a cabos office need your records regarding a child abuse investigation that occurred and it's unfounded and there is no correlation so that if you've never been in front of the department of mental health why would they need your records of a child abuse investigation that says there is no correlation and you've never been substantiated what they're doing is giving out information including private information to all of these other agencies unfettered access and it's substantiated and and upon what authority are you basing th claim or allegation that there's unfettered broad access for purposes miyan the protection of the minors because of the fact that the the if you've never been in front of the department of mental health if you've never received mental health services i think you've misunderstood my question is the authority that you're lying on for the allegation that there's unfettered access to agencies that can utilize it for purposes beyond just protecting the minors based on that the statutory scheme in terms of who can actually access these databases because the statutory scheme doesn't say the restrictions of who can access them why all it says is i needed ammo you between the counties in the agency all rights of the scheme doesn't say who gets access and why then what are you basing your claim that there's broad unfettered access on it because of the fact that people can't get their jobs back they can't get government  clearances they cannot get fingerprinted and participate in activities with their kids schools because they're in the databases the school districts have access to these if school districts have access to the seed of us c m s absolutely all through the m o u and now if your required by a letter as you are my ally counting to go in and search f c i the family child index on every referral you receive your searching for the history of that person let's say that person was arrested for possession of marijuana it has nothing at all to do which i would have used it has nothing at all maybe it was back when they were in the sixty's and then in college after  system but it was then removed and found unsubstantiated when i get that information from c ws c m s by john doe will it say that the charges were found unsubstantiated it may or may not that's part of the problem system should be updated right well technically this system is supposed to be updated but it's not always allowed and the problem is there's no way for somebody to walk in and say listen i want to check my data and if it's wrong i corrected so because nobody knows there it is this isn't as applied challenge or a facial challenge or does that distinction not apply in this context i think in this case it doesn't matter your honor i think whatever challenge you're looking at it's the fact that people are in these government databases don't know it and it the information is used against them just the fact there be a problem if the information is corrected in the underlying see the u s c m s they did yes one of the reasons the ninth circuit ordered khaki to clear everything out of their database except substantiated child abuse was for this very reason you can't expect people to go through and clear out five million records of incorrect information they're not going to do it it's easier to order them to remove all inconclusive allegations and all unfounded allegations and leave the ones that are substantiate and then give the due process right to review it and appeal it that's all i'm asking for i'm not suggesting you should abolish all databases we need them certainly the department of children services needs them it's the unfettered access that's me that's wrong as it is in this case so is it your argument then that given the level of access if the information is correct it and that w would cure the problem except nobody's going to correct it your honor we're talking about over twenty million records a year going into this database who's going to sit there and worry and correct them all you have fifty eight counties in the state of california no one's going to correct twenty million a year then what's the remedy the remedy is to remove as i wrote my brief unfounded allegations from the twenty million they could come in the state says they're not responsible for the content they're only responsible for maintaining it that's why only l a county is the name if they are l to review five hundred million records don't have to remove review them they're classified your honor they have found it inconclusive and unfounded that's how they're classified you're saying that the in fact they did it and has still a versus the county of los angeles that's cited in my brief that was the settlement agreement with with regard to mr andy has he asked for another hearing after the court proceedings ask for another hearing from whom there isn't one jasper here in l a county told him there is no right to appeal your inclusion in cd of us c m s because there is no statute ordinance or requirement by solid case law there is a conflict in the cords that you're entitled to the right to due process for hearing for inclusion in cd of us am after well mr mr kyl had a had a hearing he went through a he had disappear a court ruled not once but twice that he didn't molest this children it's clear there is no reason and the statute doesn't even allow for that kind of a hearing that's where you go when you can't resolve it at the administrative level that argument is like saying well ok this court's going to will that mr n d should not be in the database he's not required to have a he said too late for him to have anybody else then petition the county of los angeles to remove them from the sea the c w m c m s database on the grounds that the khaki entries been found unsubstantiated or unfounded who they are who do that they can't petition county of los angeles has clearly stated in the records there is no mechanism for review  in the child welfare system case management system because there is no law statute or ordinance mandating it so then who would there be would there be a review to the state court to order the county to conduct to remove someone let's say john doe is listed in the khaki system it's then determined that those found those matters are unsubstantiated or unfounded the now removed from the khaki system but that already found went over to see wm c m s now john doe asked the county will you please ensure that you remove me from the system because it's ugh substantiated and unfounded assuming that the county then says nope sorry we don't authority and that person john doe then go to state court in california what would they ask and what would happen i would think that they would have the right to file a lawsuit in federal or state court under denial of  her there's no administrative procedure within the county or the state to either ask for that removal if the matter has been found unsubstantiated unfounded or to seek review of a denial of that decision first there is no all right thank you john doe is accused of child abuse their name his name ends up in c w m c m s then khaki then goes through a hearing and it's determined that that allegation is unfounded a of the public i mean of the the private database system but there is a policy that requires that the name will be updated to say that the khaki hearing went forward and the allegations are unfounded and so that is what and is there any way for john doe to verify that what is supposed to have happened in fact happened namely the system's been updated and see the pm c m s so far as i know i don't believe there is an administrative way for him to find that out but clearly that would  is we're making the assumption that the schools have some type of access to this as counsel was claiming that there is a system of privacy for these records under which a twenty seven that these documents these materials  not disseminated the briefs in the record clearly reflect even counseled me this is private schools are not going to know this schools do not have access to this this is what we go to to figure out who has access to  see that us c m s the a twenty seven the wiki twenty seven which identifies that this is materials matters that are juvenile court documents that are limited to social workers and county agencies that deal with agency or department within an agency to access c w s e m s unless they're statutorily up the rights is there as far as i'm aware i mean i don't i'm not aware of that being the case where anybody can just access anything just because the county of los angeles department of children family services has access so anybody can now just access it wherever they want so what's the purpose of of c the u s c m s and how is it used for the purposes specifically to have a database system where if there is let's say let's take the example there's a child there's a hotline there's a call from the to the hotline that there's a child who's in danger ok maybe true may not be true there is a social worker who is assigned out to go investigate that call that social worker now takes information and makes a decision whether that needs to be elevated to the next that social worker may find it to be unfounded and this is where the whole argument falls apart for the other side let's say they go out and they find out that call was unsubstantiated unfounded like the end result of this case should that person be purged from the record with that person how that i would somebody know that it was unfounded i mean the whole thing doesn't make sense you supposed to just purge everything because what happens when next time there's another call and that's also unfounded the person the social worker inside wants to look at the history was there another call back then was there another unsounded home well i was have to admit i was a little bit confused by the plaintiff's argument as to what the ultimate remedy that they were seeking for but i thought counsel to clarify today that really what she's seeking for is not a perch of the names all together from c w s c m s but to ensure that the corrections are properly made so that people who should have access for unfettered access as counsel put it it's not held against somebody so the claim is one substantiated to verify i have the ability to verify and have a process that challenge  update it properly well you are not to be a vase i will answer a question but let me let me at least again establish your something that with respect to this that or that the court has raised that's not in the complaint actually what counsel alleged and why the court is probably confused is because that's what was alleged in this case in this complaint that led to the dismissal was specifically a purge specifically modifying and altering the need to ensure this person is no longer in the system which is of sort nominee just of course specific question in terms of administrative remedies i mean is that how we can even have that you have a private system that allows for this so that means that every single time there is a call a hotline a person is going to go out there we're going to have an administrative review to make sure that it is this person on the system is this person not in the system what happened what didn't happen and we the whole system is geared towards the juvenile court privacy documents and you create it in ministry of remedy for something that is private the issue here is what is the harm to the person if the person saying well the school if this is publicly disseminate information ok you've got a violation of your right to privacy or you have a  system that is designed for each of these chopper tect of services to have a system where they can monitor and protect children from our own that's the purpose of the system and i asked appellant council what can john do to john doe do to ensure that the system has been updated i'm not sure if i asked you if i did i apologize did you do your own research then i'm not sure and you telling me that there's nothing that john doe can do to ensure that the c ws c m s system has been updated with the latest kalki information john doe can certainly get his records anytime soon any time he wishes from into filing a twenty seven petition and get juvenile court documents and i suppose once he gets the documents he would see that and i should also add that in this case is what we're looking at is and i understand there's a broader aspect what we're looking at here is specifically this complaint we're talking about look at the individuals who were sued in this case because that's important how do you have liability unless you go as to the individuals who are sued you have three hearing officers who were sued they're basically being sued because they made a decision how they even made a decision in appellants favor the name would still be there as an whether was unfounded founded you're being sued as just doing during a hearing that's makes no sense and the investigators being sued for being a witness so where is the liability is to the county as at least the way it is there is no basis in this complaint to attach any liability that is we need to come down here to where the court the district court specifically know that even if we think that piece allocations in the present complaint are deficient  has the plaintiff have an opportunity to amend she she has not had an opportunity in the end but because she is the way the complaint was alleged as i've alluded to earlier in terms of the remedying side and in terms of what she claims in this case the hiring firing and promotional decisions it does what state law mandates most government agencies and public and private employers under camera which is to check criminal background histories and d o j records and c m s does not implicate due process under humphrys unfreeze just requires notice and some opportunity to be heard and this issue comes up a little bit in the india and the matter sort of the alleged duty to update updated processes is an indication i think you're getting to a point where if you're quarreling or extending humphrey's to that point you're including a negligent standard into the do people would do a process require that there be some system of allowing a person to check to see if the information about that person has been correctly updated well i think to the extent that information is stigmatizing such as stigmatizing information about you is there you have your hearing you then get it corrected it is now ruled it has been unsubstantiated or unfounded it should be updated if the system works well and to see ws c m s do you have a due process right to confirm that the system now in fact as work as intended and the system has been updated i don't think so your honor i don't think that's what humphries extended due process to i think that's more of a if you fail to breach of duty to update a database i think that as i said that's a negligent standard that we shouldn't due process require that now maybe not you know unless there's a request but if there's a request to ensure that information's been updated and corrected now why shouldn't there be due process right because this information is stigmatizing and erroneous if not updated i think your honor if if someone has to petition through section eight twenty seven to find updated records that's the process open  otherwise i think simply reaching out to the department is also it's you know it's a low tech remedy but it's the department provide response and its formal response say hey you know i really want to make sure i'm off the system this department said their letter confirming that we've updated it well i don't know of any formal procedure or policy relate to that i know that individuals investigated when you think your phone procedure that means there's no procedural i don't believe i'm not aware of a formal procedure for the where you would be went to you represent the king on a story and we refer to the eight twenty seven section eight twenty seven procedure which is that the same as what we just heard about that you can file a petition for updated records with juvenile court and that will tell you whether or not c w s e m s has been updated right you're ok if that's the that's the that's the procedure yes and so i think in the courts should really when it's looking at state court proceedings were concluded he was told that he had an opportunity now to have a grievance hearing me and as i understand the record he never went through with that you're right your honor mr and he was let but is it too late as procedure is the and i would i would think so and in the interest of full disclosure i believe that my understanding is that mr andy has been removed from khaki by the by the county and i was through this grievance process are on its own on its o worked came to its rulings dismissing the abuse allegations mr and he never took advantage of the due process mechanism that was available to him and that failure to allege taking advantage of that process is dispositive to his claims especially  because of that fact that he did not allege that he took advantage of the due process mechanism available to him now with respect to seat up us c m s as i said substantiated allegations after the juvenile court proceeding should be updated to reflect that the juvenile court found them to be unfounded now i think it's it's worth pointing out because an issue came up as to the sort of governmental allegation we're getting to a point where we might severely be hindering the governmental interest in protecting children c w s c m s is a restricted confidential investigatory file database and it's designed so that children don't fall through the cracks we want our caseworkers to have all of the relevant information available to them for them to make the very important decisions they make on a day to day basis with respect to how well welfare and child safety and unfounded allegations inclusive allegations serve that purpose because it allows a caseworker to be able to assess the situation and the information isn't necessarily incriminating you saying that a caseworker would want to know and we would want to caseworker to know that someone has had multiple unfounded allegations against them as part of the caseworkers decision to how much more should be that person should be digging before putting a child in the person's our ha that's absolutely right your honor and it's not necessarily not every flag is a red flag the information can also be exculpatory if you haven't a disgruntled neighbor who's continually filing unfounded allegations against you that's something you want caseworkers know about you also want to taste workers as humphries recognized and a lot of time just to say humphries recognize that law enforcement and local agencies need to be able to take bits of pieces of information to establish patterns of history in order to detect otherwise undetectible situation thank you all right thank you very much  very briefly in the case of mr kind a twenty seven petition is useless he's not a parent not a relative and not a guardian he has no status in their dependency court and he's not entitled to seek a every prior allegation that's unfounded were inconclusive because the neighbors angry at somebody is a red flag for this reason the county of los angeles uses its sub database called strategic decision automatically four or more prior referrals is the highest ferrell you're automatically presumed guilty it requires a higher level manager in the county to approve closing that referral so social workers won't close them they will either keep them open and file a petition or try to find a way to get the people through to voluntary service for now as far as mr india concerned the county never notified him that he's got removed from khaki it was nice if they get it i haven't seen any evidence of it and mr n d did twice that he did not molest his kids why did he need to wait for the dependency court to finish is some issue regarding child custody subsequently down the road a year lighter to wait to get removed from a database he didn't belong in how long are you supposed to carry the scarlet letter then but most have to talk about the eight hundred twenty seven but can one hundred seven it's not restrictive your honor there are seventeen exceptions to a twenty seven you can send the information to other states to other government agencies that's how they are using the family child index as outlined in my  in the brief i specifically agenta prior all of the agencies that access cd have us c m s information on a daily basis l a county requires their employees is not a parent relative or guardian even if you find out that the records haven't been updated there's no matter to address the problem there is no mechanism to appeal your inclusion information you're tough out of luck then in the case of mr n d he doesn't need an eight twenty seven petition he is a parent he is entitle to a copy of his records he doesn't have to go except to the department of children services sign a form as the parent say i want my file he's legally entitled to it but this is the buck everything is going to come back redacted  to reflect the unsubstantiated unfounded conclusions from cathy technically i guess if he hadn't or tourney who's familiar with the system as i am and where i spent twenty five years working for the county would know how to do it he could probably figure it out ultimately i bought him from your answer that you have not done that for mr n d i did that for mr ending when i first filed the lawsuit your honor but when the court shut me down at that point oh but you can  when if i could ask the appeal lease council to respond to this point that because mr conway is not a parent relative or guardian he doesn't have standing to file a petition for updated records with juvenile court so how could he find out whether c w counsel who says only a parent relative or guardian can file an a twenty seven petition you're on represents you yes the short answer is yes anything else yes it is she can file a petition and she can ask on behalf of someone else or any i mean on behalf of somebody who is not a parent guardian or to me what trances i can find i can file on behalf of the county to get records relating to a certain person as long as i put in the basis for it you mean as long as that person is a parent guardian  karr wants to be satisfied that the information about him has been updated in c w s c m s is he going to be able to file a petition and get that answer and if not isn't that a due process concern i don't think it's a we have a system in place where someone is just saying because there any particular system they have if they have some kind of process right what we have here is a system a system just because your name is in there does not mean that you're very much for your argument we're going to take a brief ten minute break before starting the next case