contact were entered in place for those that protection against scott atika we asked a couple questions about that safety plan because that's a written document but it's virtually impossible to read  there isn't a part of it that says what time frames are impose by this plane can you tell us what the time frames were in that safety plane i don't have it but your honor i just know it was entered and i know that the criminal but we recognize that there are exceptions to this general rule and one of them is when the plane it has a special relationship with the defendant when the attack by a third party incur the special relationship exists and protect the relationship exists in this case they found that it was that this would go back to this case with this relationship the film has it and as it were stud has volunteered this to protect the relationship it's accurate isn't that throughout all this time period the mother was a picture graham had physical custody of the child although perhaps living with the grant in this case i don't think there's any doubt that again there would have been a voluntary undertaking taken to protect this this young child if we look at the elements that the supreme supervise the child protective child supervise any contact i think i can read that much of it so supervise any contact with their son and so forth but of course a bit of voluntary undertaking cause was there any request or you need it over here because you stood on your pleadings as they were or did the talk or say you know there's no set of facts you can plead under these circumstances which would be a bible cause but it's not  sued he's the director and aren't you in effect in your complaint saying because he's the director the local official was following his policies that is exactly right which is something that gets what we were told you have to prove differently then in different cases i'm not sure i mean if you're if if what you're saying is the direct that the local official was acting in accordance with the policies of stablish by the hearing a page sixteen the circuit court asked him just as where did today what's the basis for this personal involvement in this individual case and the response was well someone had held these people what to do and that person is mchugh and because he's head of the department again based solely on the fact that he's the director it's a vicarious liability theory that's being alleged indeed if it's taken as true what it would mean for the first time is that at any stage at any point if they wind individual in any state agency its name the director can also be named have to go through a phase of discovery before being on the case the governor by the same law would be properly named who sits on top of the state a school or again it is clear joseph was in the sole and exclusive give his mother she was the only one who could determine where he stated when at any point in time she was brave to leave me in the past presidents according to the decision the reason that the miners were staying would be over the elder brother was that their mother was not getting them in school during the week as she should have been doing there in that same timeframe when the miners were staying with the op with the ample thread then the father of those two minors was also residing at the the residence of the mom and during that time one of the minors was molested and they tried may this same type of claim against the um in that case in that attempt was denied and the reason that l giving up of that the injured are by the father and there has to be an intentional and outright acceptance of that responsibility and there's been none of that in this this is a this is a three year old child if you want to just say well we'll see you stay here but you know if something bad happens to you well whatever that does not seem to be especially in light of classes