may please the court my name is chris young's and i represent the parents the most teens this case involves the constitutional right of parents to raise their children according to their own values and morals and not to have that when they want the agencies and tangled themselves in and substitute their own judgment for those of the natural and custodial parents on religious education and medical issues today because a mil she does have twelve other minor children there is not only a mere possibility that the harm selectionist case will occur again but that possibility has now become concrete between the district court's erroneous decision and the filing of this appeal another custody and this is also we've also filed a motion to supplement to supplement the record too to provide this information because it speaks directly to the issue of their procedures and practice practices that violated the missed no scenes rights to raise their children according to their values and their beliefs and most importantly it is now not true because don't you just set up a problem under younger against terrorists because now the case is pending in state court and younger requires a federal court to abstain where we're addressing issues about the past your your theory about why that claim is justiciable is that the millstones have other children so that this issue made these issues may arise in the the contention that it is has indeed a risk and is now being litigated in state court is what brings younger to the fore so the question that i'm asking you is why if we grant the motion to supplement and consider the third eldest child why there isn't a young problem here on or i'm not prepared to answer that question but i can speak to the fact that we are here to resolve all of the nelsons constitutional issues and do that to protect their constitutional right going for it because they then that's an insult or i assume because we haven't granted the motion to supplement the record bought right there there are two options should we deny the motion to supplement the record it's hard to see the  children and their case is alive as to those twelve other children and we are seeking perspective relief for those children to ensure that their rights will not be violated neck the next time is a couriers this is this is the best remedy for our clients and this is a pass remedy because we can address all of the constitutional claims at one time and we can protect them before they're violated again but if they're if they're state proceedings or better are initiated with regard to their remaining children you can litigate all these issues in doing those proceedings yes you can but again the the milstein's don't know that their constitutional claims that they're that they're being their constitutional rights are being violated until after it happens and in this case the mill she is constitutional claims developed over the course of their these children's proceedings and was in one instance where the parents didn't provide the parents and received notice or  consent or opportunity to be heard for a medical claim and it's all these medical appointments happened over the course of years and so it's best for these issues to be addressed in this federal case and to protect  which is the third one already you know she went to a runaway horse yes there's fifteen children three are adults and go yet three are adults now other fifteen children and  she is going to be placed in a foster home a permanent foster home she is going to be placed and school probably public school she is going to she's already been taken to medical appointments but that the parents something that you can litigate the present condition yes but again this is the best way to protect not only the current the the current minor at that is then that custody but all strict customs and so it's very important to the mill sheens that that their children abide by these customs and traditions and the walking agencies  soley deciding for example placement for religious observance or for foster care seemed based on their based on the fact that they're jewish but just because a person is jewish doesn't mean that it's the same belief as the militia and it's contrary to the and i see that my light has come on so i'd like to reserve my time for model certainly if you know correctness of its ruling on ricker feldman as well as the pending motion to supplement the appellate record that has that has been discussed i'd like to jump right in and respond to a couple of the matters that were that were just under discussion particularly with regard to these new facts and of the motion to supplement to the the appellate record i want and i want to emphasize the very limited scope of the proffer declaration and the limited scope of the proffered new facts that have actually been presented to this court to be added to the to the record because of the plaintiff's concerns about the confidentiality of of all child welfare records under wisconsin state law they put in a very limited record you have the option to go and get a court order from the state children's court allowing the use of allowing the use of those records and that is in fact what was done in order to create the district court record in this case but they didn't going get a state court order so they put in this very narrow this very limited declaration that contains very few facts and in fact it does not contain all the facts that have been that have been talked about already here this morning some of which were  about brought up by opposing counsel and some of which were raised in response to a question a question from the court that there was once there was a statement that the child that the third child d has been was taken from the taken from the home i don't think that reflected in the him in the declaration what's reflected is that she is that she's out of the home and was in a runaway shelter there was a statement that she's in county in county custody we don't have any details of the circumstances of the out of that custody in the two children's court cases involving the older children that were that were at issue in the allegations in the complaint in this case authority county welfare authorities received reports of possible abuse or neglect of the of the child they then conducted an investigation determined that it was appropriate to take the child into protective custody filed chip's petitions petitions for children in need of protective services in the state in the state children's court so these were definitely clearly examples in a quick the child welfare authorities were receiving information  concern about the well being of these children and then reaching into that family and reaching into the relationship between the children and the and and and and the child in a way that gives rise to some of the alleged illegalities that the plaintiffs complained about in their be extract it one by one put in foster homes or whatever to do with people who with whom they do not agree on under whatever definition of orthodoxy is that that seems to be what they are looking for some way to protect that it does have them picked up one by one of us is there and i'm not sure i know the answer but that is does seem to be the concern that is that is certainly the concern and and my our position is to is focusing on is there currently but just a simple controversy before the beat before the court so the question is what were the illegalities that were alleged in the complaint and are those are those alleged illegalities either going have they been shown to be ongoing or has the reasonable likelihood of their recurrence been been been been established and i don't i think that's the a political legal standard and i don't think that either of those things have have have been established so if a child if if and i don't know i have because of the confidentiality concerns restrictions under state law ip i'm in possession of very limited progressed to that i don't to my knowledge there's been no chips or is there has not been either the ditz neither the milwaukee division of child protective services nor the district attorney's office has you say what you just said but using words child protective services case i don't think that a child protect a child in need of protective services petition has been filed by either the district attorney or the division of milwaukee  child protective services in the case of in the case of d d if there is a pen i think i'd it's my understanding that she may have filed a petition on her own on her own behalf but that's not in the record before this court those for those reasons that the children are completely out of the system they're not children they're adults now and so they're no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the children's court they're going to keep those issues are not are not on going to the extent that there was when when the district court asked when we had oral argument on the summary judgment motion they response from the plaintiffs to the questions from the district court was the same thing that was said here today they have a lot they have twelve more children and we fear that there is going to be a recurrence but they have yet to produce to produce evidence that gives rise to a reasonable likelihood that the illegalities that relent in the complaint are likely to  likely to recur i'd also like to address the the younger abstention question that was that that was discussed that was discussed earlier originally at the time that the complaint in the district court was filed there were the the eldest the first child c had actually turned turned eighteen already and was out of the system and then the second child s was still in it was still in the system and one case the case of that has allegations in the complaint was ending eggs almost simultaneous with the time when the federal complaint was filed but she immediately had another case that commenced because she ran away after her first case was was was dismissed from children's court and that  rise to a second case so there there were ongoing there were ongoing the facts that really were quite continuous with the things that were that were at issue in the complaint the plaintiffs initially filed a preliminary injunction motion which was subsequently voluntarily voluntarily withdrawn but while that motion was pending we briefed that we filed a brief in opposition to that motion and did raise younger abstention at that time because there was there were both pending and over completed cases that is involved at that at that point in time so we argued mootness as to the first child and younger abstention as to the second by the time we got to summary judgment here the there were no pending cases at the time of summary judgment and so younger was younger was not an issue but i agree that with the with the with a judge easterbrook that i think the younger issues are are are real are real ones and that details right younger applies to proceedings brought by states in order to vindicate state policy if child number four is just a run away then there is no prosy if child number four has brought her own proceeding then younger is irrelevant because no proceeding brought by the state now that even if we take the affidavit in the motion to supplement the record we don't know the answer to those matters that that that's correct and i agree i would i would only have representation of counsel as young's that there is  but it's not in the milstein affidavit correct and i would only add that i think that if the if there is no action brought by the state that would be subject to would be subject to younger then i think that just strengthens our argument that the events involving child number four do not involve a recurrence of the illegalities that related with regard to child two children one and two which related to the state coming and reaching into possibility for children to age out of the system i would only emphasize on that point that if one raises these issues before the children's court as they were rising at that time concern is greatly greatly diminished when when the problems arise and a child is placed in a sabbath placement with a family that whose practices are offensive to the to the milstein's then then if that is raised with the children's court at that time there's an opportunity to address it in a timely in a timely matter if a couple of years go by and then you file a massive federal lawsuit with lots of claims that you feel that you've accumulated the time problem is greatly exacerbated in that circumstance i think we actually have covered most of the on matters that i that i wanted to talk about we haven't talked about a record feldman it's we've argued a pretty thoroughly in the in the briefs and so yes but i must say i can't see why the record feldman doctrine would be relevant the milch times aren't asking to upset the judgments in either of the two state court cases are under the only thing rick or feldman is the parties don't cite saudi basic industries they don't cite our opinion and richardson it is a non doctrine that has been officially rejected now why the district court talked about it and why the shall talk about it over in your own good idea if there aren't any other questions from the court then i would just conclude that we would ask the court to deny the pending motion supplement the record and to affirm young's going back to abstention that does not apply here because we are not litigating what is being litigated in state court we are looking at independent agencies policies an independent agency action the court wants to know what's in the best interests of the child and they say to an agency go see what's fit they'll find a placement they utilize their own policies and make actions and terminations for that child and that is what we're challenging we're not challenging the state court we're trying to simply supplement the record only to demonstrate that this issue is not moot it's exploded it is happening again well but you you had time to think about younger when you were sitting there is there a response to the younger problem that's what i think that is what my response were not we're not litigating what's happening in the state court we're challenging if you even see policy even though not litigating anything overlapping what is going on in state court then i don't understand why there is any federal issue we we have federal constitutional claims the claims concern the potential management of state court litigation litigation so if there is no state litigation in the offing then you're just asking for an advisory opinion if there is state that occasion you're not asking for an advisory opinion but there's a younger problem that's where i'm getting hung up there we're not asking for these decisions that are made or not made in the court we're not challenging the point that the child is placed much challenging that the child and you're not worried about what's going to happen to the kids but that's a kid is not part of your challenge of the policy and i think it's that's the problem with the new the external attack on with this state does particular child then that gets in the state court and not under the constitution there we have three policies we're challenging and they're operating on these policies and we want them to found to be found invalid for all of the future children that are going to come to this court because at some point they're going to be coming again and they're going to be in the constitutional rights are going to be violated they won't be able to redress that until after the fact that it's happened that seems to be addressed on a prediction that the state court will violate the constitution i don't see any they says for that predicts the whole point of the younger is that the federal court cannot indulge that assumption we're not saying that the state judiciaries filing were saying that the agencies of of the at the county agencies that are fine place or for these children taking care of their medical needs are the ones violating it because the court has deference to those individuals to make these determinations not the