and i'm going to take that three minutes during the time i want to start by just pointing what i think are the seminal cases to consider in considering this labyrinth seat that was visited upon the court in this probable cause it is critical to include facts that my undermine the credibility of statements made in the warrant application in u s versus davis another u s supreme court case the court held that when truthful answers were withheld that might spur earlier fruitful investigation and the warrant is rendered invalid laid out for the court a plethora of information withheld from the judges who had warrant setting can i ask you just set aside that issue for warrant one has to as sas and just look at warrant one as to ls and more into his to s s why aren't the threats of suicide as to both of and which will be eventually ended up filing after the fact i know so what difference does it make whether the maternal family is having one do influence on the kids if at the moment the child says if you send me back i'm going to commit suicide why isn't that enough to remove the child even if you know they should have mentioned about the maternal parent family simply because you're talking about you being a fundamental liberty interest author as and  if they commit suicide and that's what i don't understand now i would have made a difference and it would have been denied that's a smokescreen your honor because how they told the court that mr sick all was fine with not having the children returned to his column or him moving out of all so that is sister or i think to stay with these other two family friends which is common and then to the court system has those things been said that then there wouldn't be a reason to remove the children of minor bit of perjury is not acceptable minor perjury there is no such thing as how the hard courts cracked so yes i think we would have had to question what i whether the children should have been removed from some singles custody but whether they could have been placed on somebody else's custody is that what you're saying so your honor what i'm saying is under the law understand why at st glance one thinks well wait a minute these kids said they're going to hurt themselves if they went back to that that's just i think gives you probable cause i submit it does not because the underlying question is is can  nothing they did was reasonable but they did not tell him any of this background is this underlying facts they don't know that maternal role is wrong because then these therapist just like a judge might have said hey what i want to know more  of the recent most report i think it's telling you're out of it there's three not ration was recent one not mentioned at all and you also see the court found by clear and convincing evidence just weeks before that  on and it's not just that not that they just express that you have multiple nuttall health care providers from the county of los angeles one of move two of them actually observer psychiatry's from different hospitals minors especially assigned advocate it was a special advocate all expressing concerns about suicidal ideation so tell me about the wanted one as to s s chris at that point there wasn't a suicide threat as to as as and it seems that even the uncorrected warrant application was pretty thin and so why shouldn't we conclude that if the corrections are made that that warrant you know that's material on that war that would be might have had a different outcome st of all i can dress that one is that does mention that sebastian's issues with respect to him having difficulty adjusting to his father's home and all of the different concerns he had seeing his sister going through a sort of suicidal intent herself and if the court is concerned about well what about these other issues pryor back in two thousand and thirteen i would ask your honor to note that when it comes to this work one st for for for the minor for the boy what happened the judge the magistrate that time agreed in when show it is what are we talking about an issue of keeping the minor away from the child from mr siegel on the st warrant your argument is that the harm was emotional it wasn't any kind of physical harm as to has he had been hit before in fact he even said that in his deposition testimony that's what he had told people that was never established as a he said that in his deposition even said this is what i have told people so whether we're going to argue about whether he had actually been hit before any of those matters we're talking for probable cause your honor we're talking about just information that this social worker has the belief to put that in front of the magistrate and enough probable cause we're not talking about a higher standard here of clear and convincing we're not talking an issue here about anything else other than the information that went into that weren't even for even for especially that was enough in there for the courts to even be concerned for there to be an actual sustaining outlet at issue in the case because what happened the matter was in fact noted to be in danger in problems and that's what he  yelling and screaming get out i need to get out he's crying hysterically i want to go home now and and there's a paragraph you wonder if you see in seven hundred and forty eight and talks about that was just the interview with him and then there's a discussion i think and there's discussion about how the social worker went out and noted all the favorable things for mr seagal as well in terms of they went out for shopping and things of that nature but the bottom line runner is that there is evidence exactly here in the world about what that was later but that's corroborated evidence to show that this child was in fear of his father at least he was expressing it at the time and it's so simple to say just on what monday morning quarterback yet everything is fine here you know what the social worker should have done th worker was just trying to get the father and yet if it did this child wasn't really expressing any type of harm or type of concern and it's really easy to nd guess and say that but number one the law doesn't allow for that the law allows that all all that has to be done is the probable cause which the the cases cited in the briefs reflect that but nd how many times are social workers dealt with these types of cases where there's a big concern and then there's allegations they ignored it and if something bad happens there get in trouble so no matter what they do the social workers are going to be blamed now the plaintiffs in this case are going to argue of course for advocacy for their position because mr siegel claims well the social workers didn't see it his way and they didn't get all the information that's favorable to him so what they wanted basically was kind of a manuscript that was favorable to him but one distortion workers dealing with two children and one of them where you wonders point out ok one of them is saying i want to get out he's screaming is yelling he's concerned now plaintiff are going to say well he's in meshed with the other child he's got influence ok fine those are arguments but the social worker is dealing with concerns about a child in real time who who wants a code to call nine hundred and eleven who's concerned about his an immediate relief you remove the children from from the home and at the immediate time they went to another foster care but it wasn't permanent in fact you have to have some type of substantiated or a sustained petition for a something to go for that it was just a temporary matter and in fact that is supported by the evidence it was not permanent it was just in order to avoid harm yes you any claimed in accuracies about even raising a child as your own or noted or things of that nature that would make a difference we're talking about something really substantial we're talking at it again at its core we're talking about children who are claims suicide at least in three the four different issues we've got that it's a pretty big deal and the trial court was correct in its analysis and it a thought a cli went through each of these purported alleged misstatements and talked about all these issues and we're satisfied that even if you wish is the l organ is not that he has a constitutional right because it went to someone else and not his relatives that somebody is claiming so that's my response to it is that he made you know he is saying that argument but that is not it has nothing to do there's no nex the district court it was an argument in itself as a constitutional violation it was an argument to show alleged conspiracy that the social worker somehow conspired with the family in order to get this these two children into the sisters and into the other relatives not to go to the paternal relatives but there was an allegation that in itself if you look at the briefing that that in itself was the alleged violation for any of the ones that we're talking about and in fact i would say here with respect no connection it's undisputed in the record had no connection to her friends with it wasn't friends with her and never went back to the maternal attempts so so that in fact belies their argument that there was somehow some conspiracy or went forward in some replete with with their concerns and now we're going to say well this is all made up i mean the records from the from health care providers beyond even what the kid said is very concerning and then you have the child's own special promise judge to say hey what's really going on here maybe even say you know why don't you send your application back to judge downey who's been in this case for two and a half years as for emotional abuse remember it's an pleading berkowitz spoke about they kept children and all of that those kind of after events i mean those are not relevant of course to the determination of the probable cause for sure there are not and as i mentioned in the pleadings please understand these this case and only relevant material to this judge certainly sebastian never should remember removed but if you look at the underlying problems with the child's credibility of a phone call the night before and you tell that to a judge chances are he's going to say you know what go work it out and dad was willing to leave the child new facility and lead to that as well it's all there was going to be you brought up police reports the manufactured that whole thing and her original nations that meeting she said i felt like i felt like the child wanted to call the police that turns into th