honour's this question about real seventeen c and its application to this particular type of proceed unfortunately this case is there's a large number of similar cases with similar issues that have circulated around the united states arising out of a similar set of facts with a birth injury i think there's t approved and whether or not there's a conflict of interest between the parents who are claimants and the catastrophic lee injured child who is completely cited in roberts versus ohio had the matter exactly correct that somebody has to stop and think about whether or not a guardian ad litum is appropriate at the time that one of these cases is subtle and in the number of these that i've done in the past it's always happened as i pointed out of the brief the united states department of justice has routinely done this in other cases closely s cases one sided of a brief was carmen versus usa and the us attorney for the department of justice in that case joined in a joint motion under rule seventeen c and said in this competing people three people in this case a mother a father not married that are seeking claims out of a common fund and seeking to have that allocation determined in their favor or their child slave or there's an inherent conflict of interest there that is precisely the same as it was in carmen versus united states in which the department of justice said categorically without reservation that there is a conflict of interest i would point out that in the facts of this case unlike the facts and carmen that they are dramatically more impressive  carmen the parents had a thirteen year stable relationship as mary the father was a navy serviceman the mother was a former navy service officer of a had two other children district court had done so and had made a factual finding after an investigation that there was no conflict of interest then i think that could have been done and i think justice wisdom outlined the way that th the district i mean assuming there was a conflict of interest that the district court made the appointment anyway doesn't that start running i mean that's one of the big problems you have here is it's been so long which is at the root of this problem that's the time this child has been a minor and almost you know expeditiously after this child turned eighteen this action and did so rather summarily what the state court did was to say the parents can act as a guardian of the state of the child but not as a guardian ad litem what's what's the difference well name and i've known doesn't quite know litigated in front of me he's now retired it was presented to him sometime late on the morning of october twenty fifth two thousand and one and about twenty five twenty twenty five minutes later the requests that he the effort to arrange to have a hearing later that same day halfway across the state of oklahoma in muskogee and the parties drove over there and they started the hearing at two forty five ok let me ask you this so that's a little bit different and he refused to approve the trust agreement that's they probably got the impression from speaking with him that he wasn't going to approve that sixty page trust agreement that morning but they whole case was in federal court what happened was is somebody wanted the judge to approve a settlement they had asked the state court judge to do it for whatever set of circumstances or worse because we don't know and later that we don't know why court and so then later drove to the state court they had a twenty three minute hearing in front of the judge in state court and which a settlement agreement that involves you know one hundred pages or more of documents was approved by the court there was nobody there to represent independently the interests of this minor child well again you're ignoring the fact that the parents were appointed as the next round as a child you know like that appointment but in fact happened and so the child was technically general proper procedural method by which you can reopen that long close decision which makes we need to focus on sixty before which you argued and whether you've argued that the court lacked jurisdiction under seventeen isn't that your argument why we can reopen yes ma'am if the if there was a conflict of interest which i submit that the denture hearing would reveal to the absolutely the case and for which the available circumstances suggest strongly that there  unfortunately the issues is more complex than that what was happened was the parents were given some cash very small and move it was purchased for the parents and then the parents were receiving is that correct no they got that first six years and at that time barbara was the grandmother and i think she's the paternal grandmother is caring for the child and aware that this money is being paid out every month to parents who aren't in the picture at all you have to wonder why nothing was done during that six year period while the truck on the annuity would lead well so let me try to explain this grandmother was living in a house that had been purchased with money that the parents got from the self and there were two subsequent children that were born to those two individuals and the grandmother ended up taking care of all three of those in the house shortly after i was asked to get involved in this matter of iraq a range for the  that's part of the intricacies of the trust and i'm glad you asked that question your honor if they put him in a first since there's a wonderful home an eight oklahoma called mccalls chapel school that takes care of kids like the trust will not allow the bank to pay for the child to be peer for in the home the only thing that the bank can really care horse provides an occasional medications and if the child for instance has a respiratory infection and does owe you children's hospital in oakland city and an acute care facility not a home or nursing home but an acute care facility then the trust can fight for that but it cannot pay for any relief care for the grandmother it can't hurt if they put the child in you know there used to be a stay home it's no longer there but if it was still there if they put them in that home this trust did not buy any of that support and it would all end up on the state of oklahoma explained that the radical medical trust is right now over thirty thousand dollars a year for things like prescription medications medical devices that mystery on a regular basis so what happens when the the terms of the trust so yes money in the trust the government will trust is available for acute medical care and certain inpatient medical treatment but is not available on you know for twenty four seven in your home  judgments a federal district courts to second guess the guardianship decisions of their state court counterparts as to the prospective interviewers ask this court to adopt the cynical view that we seems that everybody was drawing a pretty hard line about letting the appellant's in this case have the have the fairness hearing transcripts did you object  and we just got finished with your argument that the federal court shouldn't be second guessing the state's decision as to that is so sensitive was a party to the original proceeding through these next friends i mean  fact that the state court appointed these new guardian shouldn't they be able to step in issues and at least get access to a transcript it seems to me that it's an effort to prevent them from coming forward with some evidence well as to the idea that the transcript would provide  e nothing in the transfer and for the record you know that's not in the record so this is all i would say you know the united states does not have a copy of that transcript either of you that is a fishing expedition that has no bearing on the ultimate question as to let me let me change it for you a little bit what if that it was the transcript indicated that a very strong conflict of interest between the parents and the child in such a way that the district would have been on notice that they couldn't be a fair representative wouldn't that then created jurisdictional problem i think if there was something in the fairness hearing transcript that only demonstrates there was an official a conflict of interest between parent and child that know represent something that might have been said that there may be nothing in there i'm just i'm just wondering it just seems to me there's a strong effort to prevent these folks from even seeing that the transcript when they're standing in the shoes of below that even if they had entered improperly it's futile because the briefing on the principal motion was complete clearly prospective interviewers did not believe that what was in the fairness hearing transcript was crucial she would be the ultimate question as to whether the settlement to be set aside transcript they hadn't been able to see that shows more than just a bad bargain and it shows and flagrant conflict of interest or some kind of fraud on the court that it's i guess there is then if there is something in the transcript that would satisfy rule sixty six the rule sixty four then yes but that then perhaps the other grounds but prospective interviewers had the opportunity before they filed this perspective before they filed motion bloke to ask for the transcript they could have moved for limited purpose intervention before they even filed the rules i understand that but if there were something in the transcript then that was suggest that this underlying jurisdictional argument is not really a jurisdictional are i mean if there's no jurisdiction there's no jurisdiction with something in the transcript or not correct right so party to that previous proceeding why do they need in a rule they represent a hard it's a request by hard for a copy of that fairness hearing transcript well that was something that you know we never understood i thought you told me a minute ago that you wouldn't have opposed them getting the transcript if they would have asked for it right as you as you invited them to is sort of how i understood you were saying it now you're telling me you would have oppose completely infirmed motion so the district court if if she'd of been so inclined she could have given them leave to seek that transcript and then supplement their briefing you agree with that i'm sure yeah i would agree with that that's something again that entire