when they decided the twelve c motion in this case petition was not seeking injunctive relief which was only seeking damages she wasn't seeking to overturn a new lower court decision or opinion i met this young woman when she was twelve years old and that was seven years after the d p p a police matter when she was three years old today at seventeen years old she read to the pre k level she's a pre k level in math she has no social skills she can't count to ten and is does anybody can review no we're point we're left appointing the child there was another attorney that substituted in to represent the petitioner mother with a plaintive mother and there's a next of friend appointed by the district court to deal with the child's special education myself and you appeal the field myself michael nothing jennifer but the child has been taken away from me as we're being all right well the child is right now currently in new hampshire in a residential care facility county here on behalf of the child who makes the decisions about her welfare and well being and you know her who's authorized to speak for her she being a minor in federal court i've been speaking on behalf of the child of which you're her attorney so there's attorneys on the client can't be one of the same i understand your question all right so enough it's in your case the mother's rights have never been terminated she still speaks for the child and it's you know right now there was a lot of terminations ok ok i got all right thank you i don't understand now well and i wasn't very clear so proceed place this child your honor first came to our attention by way of a substantive due process case by way  of a member of a whistleblower basically there was someone that was inside the family court proceedings that was watching these proceedings go down she worked for casa which is a court appointed special advocate her job was to be the liaison between you know the care given to this child if she was removed from her family and the court and this woman you know repaired with prepared reports told everybody was going on there's documented cognitive decline in this child since they got custody over we view this peaceably we being the plaintiff's view this is  hearings under section ten eighty nine of the family court act they have very little firm and they're very limited jurisdiction there to find out if the service plan in place is being followed there to find out of the care of the needs of the children are being met higher court to implore a lower court to act and we're not so our position is that we're not we're not seeking to review the lower court we're not seeking to reverse them we're not seeking to lay any will on top of them we're seeking damages for what happened to this child  yes the district court and of those were in december of last year so it might make some sense if you were to do that every few months every month conference about what's going on in the permanency hearings what's the status one can i revive this case i haven't seen anything like that this record dark it was it seems maybe because of the appeal here but it's curious to me that there hasn't been any more there was a motion to reconsider who was act seeing like status conferences or what's going on in the family court so that now i can live to stay and we can proceed on the damage that action what have you requested that are or what's the status of that we immediately file this appeal this motion sequence since the decision of the order by staining caused specific irreparable harm to this child and this is what we came here to ask you to lift this thing she's now seventeen years old at age eighteen at age eighteen she can sign itself out of the foster care system between eighteen and twenty one she can only over and what's happening is this day when she was sixteen as this name was being implemented we had a life care plan or a sort of fired registered nurse who gave a very clear mitigation plan at sixteen years old she said that you could still you know give this resources become available or they're willing to consider it which they're still not because this the believe they're going to win twelve c there's an alternative care plan that's not the public care system which isn't now which is so orderly failed to meet her needs and created a situation where they're just not capable to a private care system which would give so every expert that we know about in this case which numbers five talks about the number one thing being stabilizing this child environment soon as possible and getting out of the care she needs and getting the attention she needs that that solves her trigger events are remaining in the care system which is and now this child this phase dealing with events that she can't cope with the state has created a situation where it's sixteen to seventeen years old very tender years for a child especially in this situation she's now being the only chance is the adult care system which is coming out of like a freight train please give at this point of the chance to go back to the district court and so we're done with discovery we're in summary judgment because of use in this case back we're in summ in the record we're very acutely aware of the time situation in the pressure under we started this case like we said in two thousand and eleven with i don't know which are where we are now how it helps in other cases we've been involved in as the cases progress towards later you know summary judgment of the issues  down maybe some of our life care plan will start being integrated into some of the lower court proceedings where they're working maybe what is will settle resolve or mediate maybe a change or bargaining her bargaining position because once you have the court equalizing the playing field the yeah exactly and we have all that information and all the work has been done the experts have been there done their reports everything's there it's it's ripe for a fact finder to hear and respectfully request the opportunity to do that and not say it in a longer especially because there's no clear answer judge get the proper care in place that we've been advocating for that this child advocates of and i can afford that could change for example i mean just to get access to this child we had to get a court order from the district court that so that our co counsels a lot of unfettered access that was stated i believe hear on the record ask all parties please to keep us apprised if anything changes in this calculus as a result of what transpires tomorrow or shortly thereafter anticipating that we will very quickly try to get to a decision this matter but more argument the second thing was whether or not the complaint itself the amended complaint has alleged a substantive due process claim to be in federal court itself we believe that the district court first of all the  thought that he could not dismiss the case at all because it would monetary damages being sought i believe that you don't even get to younger issue if you make a determination that the complaint in and of itself fails to allege a cause of action and a constitutional cause of action and that's what that's what our position is and it's not that's not what he did that's not what the district court did the district court stated in light of younger so so that so isn't the question then whether assume let's assume for a moment appellate jurisdiction we can turn back to that but assuming we do have jurisdiction to review that isn't that the fact of it just having been money damages critical is younger available that the younger abstention available in the context injunctive relief well that's that's actually one of the arguments is that yes because it is question monetary damages only that's why they apply younger but what it will we're trying to say and i'm not sure if i'm being clear and my question is is  appropriate to apply younger outside of the context of injunctive relief i believe it is your honor that that's what this court has held that it would not be appropriate to to continue with the action where the requesting monetary  under young yes but my guess my argument is you don't even get the younger analysis in the first instance because plaintiff here has failed to allege because a substance of due process claims the only allegations in this case the court passed on he didn't your write it to the letter of the law however if this court were to actually look at younger and if you're not getting to younger because the problem is what this year then you can dismiss this case in its entirety and actually the pellon also reason not to state anything monetary damages is not and exigent circumstance and that's actually this and the other thing though is that the family court is a dealing with one of the issues is whether or not the child is being cared for the treatment and that's something that is constantly being reviewed by the family court consul be considered by medical experts in connection with this to have a district court case saying that the family court is not acting appropriately in connection with this child and having money damages assessed a against individuals who are providing the information to the family court because they're saying that when it's a look back that's being sought in the damages case it's a look back or what i'm going to call a look back that's been sort of the damages case it's not interfering with what the what the family court may decide tomorrow or whatever day this week it's going to get to it is oh yeah well we do need a new plan under all the circumstances as i understand it if the child through the mother is saying you guys screwed up to use the technical term and we we want compensation for that and then it's up to the district court in the first instance decide whether that's a compensable substantive due process jury one of the never been an appeal of any of the orders with respect to placement with respect to what's appropriate treatment of this child where the child the situated and again it's not to undermine the situation of this child very difficult case and it's very sad because admitted still however this child in the course of twelve years has been in over eight different medical facilities anywhere from stony stony brook to two andrus home to just a kind of medical center to all of these different very expertise places dealing with now at the age of five this child is having visual and auditory hallucinations that's not and that was five at the time that the county perceived her into care that's not something that the county been responsible for and to go back and say everything that you did in order to try to protect this child is being and has been wrong never killed any of these orders to any of the family courts or the appellate courts when we're dealing with this every and it's more than every six months because it's at least every six months in connection with the way that the family court deals with the with respect to the truism that you're going to change anywhere and she turns eighteen and is under a different set of regulations  him and it is an adult and living her life on her own well there's a couple issues in connection with that your honor we don't know with the what the decision is going to be if she's going to want to leave an eighteen or if she's going to want to remain until she's asked for by my request was that you exercise jurisdiction over the appeal of the the study cited as twenty eight u s c at twelve my new ones have two i believe for authority that you can access jurisdiction to distil returned his case for least with respect to my client whose only facing state claims on the cause of judicial immunity argument and i point out to you that the one of the cases i said the northern district of the judge has to be said to be one thing that was the chief judge said that if not only acted in depositions she admitted that over ten years of representation she filed one motion she violated every single rule the new york state bar association standards for representing children in neglected removal cases if ten years ago in two thousand and expert panel together that we did all these years later if she had gotten a certified or a comprehensive life care plan together and submitted to the court when this child was in preventive services in two thousand and three let alone in two thousand and five we would be here at least one of the experts in this case stated wit h a reasonable degree of certainty medical certainty and his opinion that had an earlier comprehensive life care plan been hard to this child then her under then her unneeded exposure to medication would have ended her unneeded institutionalization and her nine or ten or twelve different things they could have done could've should've what have we got a seventeen year old girl right now who needs to get out of the foster care system because it is felt her orderly in every way catastrophic lee she needs to get private care if you're going to run away you're not seeking  was the purpose of bringing her into the case and there's other people professionals that have already you know interviewed her in her place on our side should be successful to start this transition which they should have been doing over the last two years right as she reaches eighteen the county should have been transitioning her to adulthood but there's no mention of that this should have been transitioning her to being out of the foster care system had done nothing on the jurisdiction question and this relates to judge johnny's question is there a mechanism to get back to federal court from the state proceedings how will you assuming the the state remains in place you don't have anything specifically scheduled but how would you return to federal court for adjudication on the  her way until she has her next interaction with either a police officer or a mobile mental health unit or someone because she has she can't function out there's a four year period when she didn't go outside just to reiterate the best we can tell it's posttraumatic stress disorder and i understand this points just to focus on the on the jurisdiction question you as a practical matter then there's no way to get back federal district court or or there is no way to get back to federal district court there's no way that i know of short of her either consenting to go according to the decision it's as well the state so i believe missy tributed the permanency here is he she l ruling that's the only way for him and it's hearing stuff because she's still in the police and then just as it as a technical matter given that shouldn't should judge ramana have dismissed the case even if you let's say he's wrong about younger but believe i believe we have a pretty good constitutional tort i believe it's been played in detail over the hundred power graph in the first twenty pages of the complaint you believe that any reasonable look at what happened to this child denies you know its logical reason what happens if there were so many people