please i would like to start by emphasizing the three facts that i think are most important in this case the first one i think is that this ismael filed the complaint as a pro se civil rights plaintiff and i think the case law in this court is pretty clear about the leniency that he's to be given as such are you know withdrawing her all of her claims to set aside the parental terminations and the other absolutely yes absolutely if that opportunity to amend so while i think the court might have appropriately identified the record feldmann doctrine as a means of identifying how she could sharpen her complaint in an amended complaint it didn't do so and it didn't ask her for the opportunity to give grant her the opportunity to do that and i think that is a big factor and one of the things that she also complained about was that the evidence presented to the juvenile court was false and she was had some video tapes that she wanted to admit for impeachment purposes and so on are you a band are you abandoning those claims as well because that does appear to me to raise a record feldmann problem for you well i think that's that's more difficult i don't know that i can or should abandon those claims and this time i think  you know if if this court is willing to accept that the record feldman doctrine was applied too broadly that she should be given leave to amend her complaint and that you know the subsequent attorneys that amendment look like i mean now that she's represented by counsel the court doesn't want to put itself in the oh this isn't a practicing law for her and telling her how to reframe her complaint about course she does seem to be complaining about  an alleged conspiracy among the social workers to interfere with reunification efforts and that ultimately led to the terminations of parental rights right and those issues it seems to me were fully litigated before the superior court of orange county and reviewed by the district court of appeal which upheld the court's determination terminating parental rights and implicitly rejecting her attack on the credibility of the evidence that was presented to support it so i'm trying to to envision what an amended complaint would look like well i think we've permitted you and there's an open question in this circuit about whether we can even remain and to permit you to plead your way around iraq or feldmann bar so i think  to focus on that what i suspect is the most the strongest and most viable claim is the equal protection claim that i think was swept under the rug i think essentially if she could foreground that you call protection claim essentially it would be against tool that would be against the workers and then also bringing in the mo now claims that are connected to that equal protection claim would you also pursue a claim that the social workers lied to the court when she well i think that you know i'm just not familiar enough with the factual evidence in support of that claim so i am reluctant to abandon it at this time but i think that your that the appropriate solution for this case going forward is for it to be remanded with her but what's that case going to look like going forward that's that's what i'm struggling with here i know it's a hard question to answer but we really do need a little better idea it seems to me that there's and there's a question of whether or not if she's able to proceed through discovery there would be new evidence of fraud or lying or deceitful behavior that would not necessarily be  proposing so i recognize you may not be as familiar with the record as your client who's lived with it now for what this occurred started in two thousand and five yes this is something so this case been in litigation now for twelve years yes so what do you got well well the state court records even part of the record at this point in this case certain parts of that are part of the record in this standalone claim on her on her behalf but what spin that out for me i mean just asked you against whom and then what's the theory the theory is that the social workers acted with racial animus to separate her from from her son i think that you know the there's a there's a question about the the  process and you might see this as a sort of repetition of the case that was previously tried in the state court but i actually do not think it was that was not a theory that was for the mode of the motive for the conspiracy she alleged before these court because she did she did essentially argue to the superior court judge in juvenile court that the social workers were essentially banding together against her and they were they were coloring their reports yes not not providing more favorable evidence of how the visits with the child were go yes i agree but i still would argue that it's an a new and independent claim s i would say that the strongest argument and her defense are and on her side in this case is definitely the fact that if you look at the disparate facts of her versus others in a similar situation that's certainly going about as i understood it and michelle you were talking about police officers being called to an abandoned three year old screaming for help and finding premises that were unfit maggots crawling around i mean just pretty filthy stuff so i think you'd be hard pressed to show that under those circumstances the initial removal at least was not  always an equal protection violation i would assume under ritually every circumstance social workers would remove the child from that kind of a premises i gree absolutely but i think that the question is what efforts were made at reunification and why did those efforts stall so i mean that reunification of us went over a two year period and evidence was presented of the periodic reports by the monitors and the social workers who were assigned to the case as to how those visits were going where's the evidence of racial animosity well so again i think if you look at the if you look at the disparate treatment that she received versus others and much more sort of horrific situations and the efforts of the social workers make on behalf of those people to reunify with their children and she's simply been treated differently well i mean the district court of appeal looked at for example as a doctor feinerman psychiatric report that was ordered under evidence code seven thirty and looked at various reports by therapists who were treating your client and the progress reports were slow there were observations that basically she had a difficult time with parenting skills when the child acted out and i mean  a two year record here and i and the district court of appeal found that that was adequate evidence to support the district or the juvenile courts terminations decision so again where is the evidence of racial animus to support equal protection well i'm sorry can you click can you clarify the record from that evidence compelling in the context of which doctrine or that the district court of appeal as i understood it basically reviewed four different matters there were three separate petitions for a change in circumstances and then they reviewed the ultimate determination of the terminations of parental rights and frankly those two district court of appeal opinions gave me more of an overview of what the evidence was and anything else that i saw in reading through the record and i just didn't see anything in there that spoke to racial discrimination was basically all lack of parenting skills and in a failure to progress in the reunification process that the courts were focused on right  well i i think i can't comment on that you want to save so can i yeah so the reason i asked before about the state court record is i'm trying to figure out if we know whether all the claims she's trying to make were actually litigated in the state court record and it seems like you're saying the equal protection one wasn't then there's also the issue of just is there some kind of lying to the court straight up conspiracy to deprive her of parental rights but it does seem like her t claims the lying to the court may or may not have been litigated i'd like you to speak to whether we can evaluate that on the record we have does she have allegations that it's your position she did not let a gate in the state court as to lying by the social workers i  assume that there are lying claims that have not been thoroughly exhausted by the state court and when you say you assume i mean you're her counsel now and we need to figure out whether this case the farmer but the but but the pleading standard is notice pleading right so it's to the extent that the question is can should that should the case go forward you know that the i mean all i'm asking is that the court grant an opportunity to conduct discovery it's again it's like you cleared every until you have a valid complaint so we have to figure out if you're going to get to file another complaint and we need some indication from you as to what their complaint is going to look like in order to determine whether she has a color and i have yet to hear anything to suggest  got other than a conclusion or e allegation that there's an equal protection violation based on right i think it's a close case i would agree it's certainly a close case  of your honors may please the court my name is zach resorts will be argued on behalf of the excuse me the county a police this case really is about the stability of judgments in the degree to which a party can challenge an attack state court judgments in the district court not the rigor feldman doctrine isn't always easily understood it hasn't always been consistently applied in litigants and courts alike have struggled with it but i think in this case we do have a clear group or feldman issue and that the district court properly applied it the complaint as it exists in the lower court specifically request review and reversal of state court pleadings to say we agree with you about that that this plane should be she was properly dismissed can you speak to whether she has the potential to amend how do we know that it would be futile to let her mad it would be futile well first there's the question of if the dish court did lack subject matter jurisdiction does it have the power to  amend the and why do you think that's an open question i mean most subject matter of if someone doesn't have standing we let them try again you know say ok you have an alleged injury but you could maybe have a different one of you try again well i suppose the question is is the proper process to grant leave to amend or to dismiss without prejudice and have the litigant file a new action to properly invoke that jurisdiction and why do you care about that difference actually i think we do give leave to amend but right i'm not even sure why you answer that i'm just curious well i don't necessarily know it has any sort of important impact on this case because i believe amendment would be futile in this case can you explain why you think that's worker absolutely your honor the equal protection claim i still think faces a ruger feldman issue because it's based on insurance claims of intrinsic fraud essentially and also faces a preclusion issue because where in our court have we said that lying to a court is always barred by rockefeller and i don't necessarily know if it's been explicitly said but i think it's implied in the cases and in the coup gazey in case where it made the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and the problem with intrinsic fraud is it does go to the state courts reasoning in the findings and when you're when a claim is based on intrinsic fraud it requires the district court to necessarily thought specifically that you're either striving to set aside the judgment or you're not and if you're not you're barred by record feldman so if she's just trying to get money at this point so she says she's dropping the claims to get rid of the judgment she wants money for the fact that she has these allegations that if they're true are serious why why is asking for money f of violation by officer was something that couldn't proceed it's because your honor that the request for money still requires review of the state court proceedings which were felled and prevents and i think  a conviction and there was claims that the da and individuals had manipulated the evidence tampered with that made misrepresentations and that was in one thousand nine hundred three action requesting damages punitive damages what not but this court held there that those claims and the conspiracy claim still necessarily would have required review into the whole analysis about about amending to get to that frame them differently and whether it would be futile and the issue w explain that because if you do you believe that we have enough of a record before us right now to be able to tell exactly what elevations about purported lying were litigated well we're here on a motion to dismiss we have to look at the complaint the claim is over seventy pages has over three hundred paragraphs of factual allegations it's you know very thorough and we have to accept those facts is true and i'm not sure what else could be allege and we also have the court of appeal the district  whether we i mean one of her allegations as i understand it is that she's got videos that show some of the things the social workers that are provably false so do we know if those videos were shown and whether those claims were were already evaluated i believe the allegation in the complaint was that the juvenile court refused to allowed those videos to be shown so then how do we know that if she's been litigated why i think that it by the juvenile court decided not to allow those the juvenile court made the finding that i find the social workers credible i find their evidence credible i choose to believe the social workers all of that spelled out in the way you just said it as much as i can draw from the district court of appeal decisions but that decision doesn't talk about every social does right i mean it doesn't go through allegation specifically right and i think that's also the problem with this case or as far as the briefing we've had in this court is that there are really there is an attempt by the appellant to specify which claims against which social worker some of the social workers are on the case for just a couple months some of the defendants are just monitors who are just kind of watching the visitation and giving notes and giving it to the social worker so it hasn't been described b yet which claims what are these claims against whom and how and so i have difficulty respond i should have a chance to try again if she tries again and it doesn't work all of it is clearly litigated prior then you could argue that at that point i knew i suppose but i think you represent by the way the county as well as social workers right yes you're on the right if speaking hypothetically if we decide that the plane should be given the two men against the it's definitely an intrinsic case it's definitely intrinsic fraud and the reason why issue preclusion will bar these claims on in terms of profit doesn't necessarily was decided by the juvenile court because i social workers then i monella claim would could be properly attempted to be alleged i don't know if the plaintiff would succeed right i don't know if these claims that he would plan to bring would succeed but there's nothing to bar him from and making that attempt e right exactly and i think as alleged in the complaint right now it's all very conclusory as far as the men are house by going to those but i still i'm still has a ten or don't believe that a civil rights claim can be alleged in this case even if leave was to be granted in particular the most of this conduct all occurred outside the two year statute of limitations when the limitation period began only one social worker was in the case and involved in the proceedings but there's been no and that goes back to my concern that there has been specific argument or specific allegations against what these claims will be against who does seem that you're right that then she either can or she can't if she can't come back with anything in the time period she's done but if she can then maybe there are other allegations and i'm not sure how we know that it can you tell us anything that would tell us that there's no possible way that some other event happened in the two years i can also have is basically the record we were presented with what's alleged in that seventy page complaint i mean i don't want to speculate on what she can come up with to allege but based on what we have now there's no indication that she will be able to bars all over claims but for about a month yes that's correct i think the decision terminating the predator rights was in july two thousand and eighteen the two years reaches back to june two thousand and eight and then the statute reaches back to june two thousand and eight there are some kind of allegation about two thousand and nine that something about a protective order in two thousand and nine do you do you know what that's about what i'm familiar with is it or was  subsequent to the terminations parental rights and the adoption of the child by the ford there was a restraining order that was sought and then subsequent to the restraining order and this is related to the summary judgment motion ordered dismissing julie f and there was a criminal investigation into whether miss ismail was soliciting to kidnap her son just months before she had lost her final appeal to the u s supreme court a private investigator reached out to newport beach police department saying this lady came to me talking about maybe kidnapping the kid it was in that context that police officer reached out to miss full carson and there's a juvenile this is sufficiently brief but i'll address it here but there was a juvenile court order that basically expressly provides that members of child protection agencies so social services agencies law enforcement agencies they're allowed to communicate about what's generally confidential juvenile case files so a declaration was signed by the newport beach detective given a small person she provided juvenile case file records which included the seven thirty evaluation all as part of this criminal investigation into whether mrs mill was going to kidnap the  child i think there's no question that no there is no violation of informational privacy with respect to that disclosure i think under the balancing test it was more than reasonable for a spokesperson to disclose those records sought advice from legal counsel who i believe advised her to have the detective signed the declaration declaration was signed received and then that's when the transfer happened ok i just want to conclude briefly by saying  that when we're dealing with such claims i i don't want to undercut what a horrible thing it is to have your parental rights terminated but it is in the juvenile court and in the state court proceedings where true fighting is supposed to take place  if we assume what we have to do a motion to dismiss that these material misrepresentations were made that's horrible but we the stability judgment is more important than the occasional miscarriage of justice so we require litigants to expose the truth in state court proceedings and that's what happened here is we had a judicial process with multiple levels of review and in each instance the court sided with the social workers in the social service agency decided to credit their version of facts and it's an unfortunate situation but that's where mrs mills remedy and is after those reviews because the district court cannot possible the social workers who live in a court right i mean we have another case recently from our court that the same county i think and social worker agency right where the state court and the federal court found that they lied to the court right there's no question that that can happen and we have to assume that it did happen because we're hearing a motion to dismiss but where you get a final judgment and you have multiple levels of review we have to respect or the district courthouse to respect those judgments of the state court and decide that i'm not allowed to review those possible but i think you know bringing us back to the record feldman doctor and you know there is case law from this court and from the supreme court that basically says that you know legal conclusions can be challenged in a section  three case so to the extent that the state court dependency court the state dependency court you know reach certain legal conclusions those are not sacrosanct right like they can be challenged in a state or in a federal civil rights case well is that she had the opportunity over the two year period that she was litigating in the juvenile court to present evidence of the allegations that she's making now she presented some of that evidence now she says i think there's more out there that if i had an opportunity to do some discovery i could fine but it does seem to me that her claims are in that respect with regard to the frog in the in the intrinsic fraud that they are inextricably intertwined with the testimony and the documents that were submitted to the juvenile court in which the court is your opponent points out i would like to say you know one important issue that i think came up is that you know fraud can be both intrinsic and it and extrinsic at the same time right so fraud doesn't need to be like you know sort of categorically one or the other it can be both simultaneously and then i would to address your point or your question i think you know extrinsic fraud is potentially a very difficult thing to uncover right if someone is acting against you see the definition of extensive fraud is you know essentially with deceptive means to keep a person from discovering or enforcing their rights you wouldn't necessarily know that and it's not a massive example would be suborning perjury or  perhaps give me an opportunity to provide supplemental briefing on that topic because i know i didn't address it in my my briefs ok thank you very much that counsel is just argued is submitted