good morning your honour's and today i would like to focus my argument on the issue run in my opening brief subject of course to any questions your honor say have about the other issues which were race this said that the evidence presented that would be our issue for a bit the evidence presented simply under the new and none of the allegations was sufficient and any time in this is reversed and remanded of course there's need to decide whether there possibly have been a different outcome had the parents now being painted as and cruel people who didn't care enough to cover their services for example where people have serious problems that were not temporary custody hearing and it set forth in two clauses of the first class says acceptance of services so that they consider the admission of any allegation in a petition made pursuant to this act and the second class says no on a referral of services be considered as evidence in any proceeding pursuant to this act except where the issue is whether department has made reasonable efforts in the richard cation hearing like the one the said issue in this case the people have to prove their abuse neglect allegation by a preponderance of the evidence and ordered to prove neglect the people have to prove the facts that support the allegations in the petition absolutely what the language of the section is saying it confirms that the people can't shortcut a good stroke their way out of presenting the underlying facts support the petition just by showing that the children must feel neglected because therapy so even a parent has a right not to incriminate themselves under the fifth amendment they can still be required to participate in effective therapy and even though the effective therapy may be impossible without admitting to abusing a child and even though in effect if they are they may hurt their the reference that she refused service was it tied into the condition of the environment with the children then yes because of what happened during the investigations in both twenty thirteen and twenty fourteen there were problems with the dirty home and other issues in the twenty thirteen and there were problems with the freezing cold home and apparently no intention of finding a warm home for the children and twenty fourteen so there were issues they needed to be corrected w refusing shows yes because the services that they were referred to were intended to address the problems that had been observed in the home and we and in fact just further evidence that the leftist legislature never meant to bear consideration of intact family services there's a passage later in section two ten directing that in a temporary custody hearing if the court finds that because the determines that the parents compliance with critical services the other point that i wanted to make also was that the that the two clauses in section two ten that we're discussing here that of them distinguish between intact family services and the power of services that come later so that evidence about which  services have been offered and what progress has been made in those services is the key evidence that goes into later hearings into disposition into permanent seat and determination of parental rights and if you adopt ebeneezer easing of her interpretation then it would fundamentally undermine just about every petition of the statute just wrong and the decision to admit evidence of in texas or was this was proper and that he also makes an argument that to press the concerns come up if the court is allowed to consider her admission of marijuana use because she says she didn't make an intelligent voluntary admission she and so this is not a criminal case the court should reject avenues request to find the due process requires a finding of voluntary nest before evidence about in tech services can be admitted and i would like to note that i believe isn't suggesting that  voluntary nest requirement is is a requirement in any other jurisdiction anywhere and i think if it were we would have seen that in the briefing i'm finally as to whether accepting evidence of ebony's admission of marijuana has violated section two t children and with claire thing it makes making sure that the conditions are safe however in twenty fourteen one investigator cash i don't love an eighteen twenty fourteen that was she was there along with pat it was alone the mother was in jail she testified that there was no heat she testified that merrill told her that was no that there was no heat she testified that she observed a space heater in one of the rooms she testified under cross examination by mr astley that she did not recall if the electricity was on and she did not recall if that space heater was working a few days after that she testified there was no heat it was extremely cold she said it fell colder in the home than it was outside so the conditions were bad and the ha there was at that time a maori is half sister who is sixteen years old who it was indicated was sometimes assisting with the care of the children when maryland avenue were present but by cobra twenty four team alexis the sixteen year old had run the youngest of these children sariah was that at that point eight months old and so there were there are eight of them the list was thirteen so clearly there were problems in the home but the difficulty with the substance of the need for substance abuse treatment and the statement about marijuana use and profound statement regarding the the mother statement in twenty thirteen was that she was true to the past and too stressed to clean the home so clearly something wrong that in tech family service worker testified in this is hearsay she and it should not have been argued for the truth of the matter asserted but i don't think it's a problem that requires for us all because perhaps i should have spelled it out more clearly but i do think that the testimony of both the twenty thirteen investigator in the twenty four teams investigated the status of their work their problems in the home there were basic needs of the children not being m investigators testimony the testimony of both investigators and also the entire family service worker testifying about the fact that there was no heat that gas was off and that the mother told her that she was working out that she knew what she needed to do and she was going to work on getting it turned back on but then we come again to cold weather in november of twenty fourteen and the weeds out working in the gas is not and it would've been difficult if not impossible for these children to behave under those circumstances it was extremely cold in this house and th for their condition this is this is not a child who got dirty outside saying every child was dirty in two thousand and thirteen every child this crib in twenty fourteen and november eighteenth was dirty and the children who investigate a cash thought in the home is correct it can't possibly be that statements that a parent makes during an intact family service case would never be considered it taken to its logical conclusion that would mean that a parent who admits to torturing a child even merely a child participate in therapy again i would just like to draw attention to the fact that the is the motion the name here in fact the intact services were an intact valentinian services are after there's only been in indicated finding that is simply a finding by the agency that there are some credible evidence that the services are not remembered in conjunction with john the rest of the temporary custody where there is actually a probable cause finding on