for taking the time to do in or around came in on an expedited child protection appeal this case presents an interesting question and clearly the assistant public defender the liberty with included into the connemara record the prior permanency hearings and the deposition hearing to make i think you meant that her interpretation of one of the criteria is of best interest the uniqueness of the family required her to go back and include great higher permanency yarns going back to twenty fourteen twenty fifteen twenty sixteen now true but the uniqueness of a family triggers the analysis the reason why she resorted to the prior permanency and even the deposition rather it gives a background of this case because one of the problems i had with the case when i made in the present and i admit i found the race written by opposing counsel for a good i appreciate the factual detail since i came into the case t determination of legal guardianship which is drastically different thing to guide me and ship under a juvenile court act and what i found disturbing is it anyway seventeen its hood january twent the clear record shows that mom had already reached at three of the youngest children returned to her that is insufficient notice for a mother to appear and under federal due process procedural due process this at lunch or to a de facto parental rights termination because legal backing should means that the legal guardian can decide that it's not in the best interests of this this this impact of the african american family this mother had been at the other permanency dispositions she had the right to confront her fifteen year old son to hear him specifically testify and she did not have that opportunity notice and the public daddy and actually found a motion not to use the child's first name because the mother didn't understand that was going on and she has done everything that was required and so the idea meant is if you supervised visitation but it would be up to the legal guardian to decide if it's in the best interest and that is a significant distinction and when we look at the probate act and how this case the specific facts of this case that i find troubling i would concede that on the january twentieth hearing you heard beside the fifteen year old son you've heard two caseworkers and you heard the foster mo today you feel arguing the case based on three and if you wish to ask the work yourself will briefly and and keep in mind that you know we have the interest of the child who gets to know where they're going to school within a couple of weeks and goes to school and then he knows where he's going to be going in a week or two here and i think the record will show that the state in their motion for an extension conceded that i was objecting to any extension this is one hundred fifty days he this child has a beds three children were returned from the pen the defender on this case asked two questions on cross examination of the first caseworker there was no representation by the public defender and record is deficient as to whether the road ever considered the uniqueness because this is not a case where the mom never did anything she did as much as possible and the  old was with one brother in the foster mother scare but the record doesn't show is that the third brother was in the same foster care but chose to return home between eldest children while still used to return home i don't think it was  and these are my reasons as opposed to a four year old who says i want to go home to be with my mom well this case that supports the court's decision to keep a four year old with the foster mother i think in no requirement in any of the cases that the court specified i considered this that and the other and put it in writing there's no requirement that they get it done and actually i think the record suggests that the court didn't consider that there were nine children it is i don't think it in any way neglected to consider the unique this of this situation this is a very very unusual situation where some of the children don't know yet i asked her that so she said there was five and i'm counting also this run on income the third when i spoke to her yesterday so five children are returned and there are four children that are in different place that what you're telling us how does that make this case unique when i think of the children are all in are still elsewhere apparently under the guidance of the juvenile court it's under the bed and that's my understanding i think it's unique because it's an these cases as you know is from twenty twelve when the kids you know this young man was only twelve and right now here until later exactly any children change and  clearly foster mom had she was a single foster mom she had the two children she had undivided attention for these two teenagers and we're not disputing that  right families the reality is the older siblings take care of younger siblings and a criteria of the fifteen year old saying i don't want to have to be a babysitter for my younger brothers is not an appropriate been with mine not that he would stay in the same school and he didn't he didn't only say i don't want to be a babysitter for siblings he also had some problems with his mother that yes your honor i can see that the january the last time a visitation was thanksgiving and twenty fifteen he was feeling pressured not only by the mile by his sister to sort of runs through time and he and the youngest brother left the house without the coat and foster mom had to pick them up and november winter and so the question that mine is advocating if there had been family therapy he had in there for therapy we acknowledge that and he expressed his reluctance and reservations to leave a harem where it was just him and it's rather when he had the undivided attention of a foster mother to return to his biological family which is iraq's families that the left tends on its african american and its nature urban city that the child cling to the family therapy there was communications between him and his mother that they could at least addressed his his reservations he had issues he has be expressed in you know the individual therapy sessions the question was did the boy under the circumstances was it against the manifest weight if you make the argument for an expansion of  us as a criteria and how do we need late that to whether the child expects which are now all considerations no one's disputing that you made a valid at a fifteen year old he was very intelligent he was articulate that man never had an opportunity to hear from him and that's what leaves the open room in her soul because she doesn't understand happen so that is my argument if there's any  meet him by responding to several of counsel's points first of all the money in this case was represented by counts so throughout this proceeding counsel who was after hearing the guardianship at that hearing wasn't it fairly clear from the testimony that the mother very much wanted j s to return home and now your honor wasn't there was no testimony better after about about two to the best of my recollection to know this but it appears to be less i'm reading things ron did in january of twenty if he anywhere in twenty fifteen this matter was continued for the an appointment of a private guardian and you're saying that the statute generally invision is easier at least a minimum of three days before the hearing would take place correct which is what it heard here the best pitch when the mother didn't appear correct oh and just so the record with this was not something that happened in the three days no that's correct the girl did not change and then three days later after the girl changed they filed the motion it was over two years later and i would also like to have to clarify what counsel said about the family composition there were seven children who came into the system in two thousand and twelve seven and to the best of my  knowledge only j s and his younger brother who were placed in the same home are still not returned home so so the numbers are a little bit confusing but there were different children who return home at different times but what is your response to councils up point that the trial court didn't really consider the uniqueness of this situation where you have parents who have seven children returning that would be you're focusing on that the eight siblings that are true or false and yet at the same time board is allowed to consider the uniqueness that's absolutely correct but each each experience at home the home the reason the case came into the system was domestic violence and and the mother had a dui she was also incarcerated somewhere in indiana at the time of temporary custody so the early to children of the family including j s of course he's the oldest in the said ship had a very different experience at home and they are the experience both at home and then subsequently in the foster home is a very important factor so not not each of these children experienced the same thing and we need to consider each child is very important court ross jurisdiction and that is not correct i would ask the question to look at section two dash thirty three one of the juvenile or dead and section to dish thirty three one talks about the poor the juvenile its continuing jurisdiction in a case where it doesn't use that phrase and i apologize but it provides for a or of private guardianship cygnus if a case says this court maintains continuing jurisdiction of this case trying first and modify these are what is so is it is absolutely not true that esus best interests and i need to start that by emphasizing that the choice before the court in january of two thousand and seventeen was not should this child go back home to mother or should this child stay with the that as as i'm sure the court is where there was absolutely no evidence that it was not in j its best interest to go into private guardianship of the foster mother had been in the home for nearly four years he wanted to stay crystal being in private guardianship he was ready for his case to be over he was tired of the juvenile court that case going on the caseworker testified that he had a good bonded educated and also himself told the court that he was very very comfortable there they had been there nearly forty years and and he felt this though the caseworker testified that he felt as dad you can't you can take them all on and they're all satisfied private private guardianship of it's kids particularly it's said do you talks about the child's sense of attachment and being valued the child's sense of security a sense of familiarity the continuity of affection for the child the least disruptive placement alternative for the child and then the next section types about the child's wishes and want term goal now no one factor it's positive there's a lot of case law that says that there's ten different best interest factors and they're all poor but i submit to the court you won't find a single factor and she said she's certainly understood the parents would continue to be entitled to at least monthly visitation she she was fine with that she understood that there was going to write i should also point out that that there had not been a list at the time of this guardianship hearing there had not been a visit between j s and and the mother parents for over a year well that is because of the big giving up  that's correct your honor and he and the caseworker after they had somewhat disastrous thanksgiving visit the next month december of two thousand and thirteen caseworker offered to the mother to bend to family therapy with talk so at an earlier point that jay has and his brother i refuse indicated they would not wish to participate there however in december of two thousand fifteen after the disastrous thanksgiving visit the mother said no she didn't want to do it and there it was too soon too soon the children had been out of her home for you uniqueness and due process i mean we have to object to that i don't think it's proper under three forty one to bring up new issues that are arguments that we do just in passing object to that in addition it seems to me that the argument became the mother never raised any objection even when the juvenile judge just for willing said and there were no objections as to any of the other parties that now until the mother would like to add to that decision has to be overturned because there are various things that you've got fortune to consider should have considered it a different contents of motions and notices shall be according to rules and then finally this is i believe rules of the circuit court to find one notice appearing on motions says a notice required written notice of the hearing almost and should be given to all parties and then to see if no such hearing is given by the personal service which i believe us what happened here looking at the proof the never should be given before four pm of the second court tape proceeding the hearing on the motion so i and we understand that however the mother's attorney was present and and mother is now wanting to raise certain arguments about certain evidence that the judge through the court judge didn't consider didn't properly consider some which came from other hearings and judge lewis who heard the hearing on january eighth twenty seventeen if this is the first time in the record that she's handling the case that that we can see so the arguments that she's going to make now will forfeited because she could have raised them in this hearing and she never did these particular arguments that  on to reverse the private guardianship d c s has placed this miner in this foster home it would revert to d c s guardianship and there's no suggestion that the defense would be moving this minor in the near future so it's been the issue was should he oral argument one of them was because school is beginning and school is very important for every child particularly this child who has apparently been doing quite well and is about to start  reason right there is one hundred fifty days and up the mother is clearly aware that the representation she received and january twent the record of these proceedings indicate that it's archaic september twenty fifth the case worker who had been studying this case who had been preparing reports who constantly testified before the juvenile courts had suggested a recommendation of maintaining the goal of does this mean i can't fight for my son fight for my children and the judge says no not at all and that's really the case gets through mail because it's no longer clear to the mother think you're using it as a singular and i would say that that's a false premise and with that one of the goals it's the preservation of the family and the best interest and the question is was that a change because clearly the magistrate's not being terminated but is concerned that the trial not be distracted the track should be satisfied with the end of august and i think if we manage it it would just be that way to preserve that there is no federal violations because clearly was the wrong of the land many years ago and i am to stand that but i'm saying that the unique circumstances this is a child and the more that doesn't understand she believes the system conspired against her and in fact it did because it's a de facto as the guardian ad litem actually said this is what we do all the time because it's the attorney of record the record would show that there's two different public defenders on this case there's been three different judges the judge who ruled on january twenty of twenty seventeen only had written orders to read and permanency or just rely on he didn't have the transcripts we had to order the supplemental transcripts so yes there's one hundred fifty days mothers concerned permanency but it's me i'm resigning she never heard what her son had to say and her son never heard what she had to say and so the family is still fractured and i think the preservation of the family and the best and that's what i find disturbing this de facto assembly line justice of these because she there was no right to confrontation i realize it's not a criminal case but this is a fundamental you think my situation is there any suggestion in the record at all that or thought the mother didn't want to  on anything other than the best interest and good network suggest it in any way shape or form that there was a lack of interest or desire on the part of the mother to after a child returned