issues that are filed in the case then the party tribunal state in this case would be responsible for providing adequate notice in this case everyone new dads address and they knew it in plenty of time to and telephone number and in fact if you c f s the best together had actually spoken with dad we know that fifty c f s investigator is in the context prosecutor in this case because we also find in the record her notation that she has which is before any substantive here up proceedings occur in this case the court is in possession of the father's address and telephone number and their date by such occupation to the state i think you know a pretty powerful  merely cannot be raised on direct appeal subject to work which are however this morning marcus w carved out an exception to that rule and that exception is when there is no parent present and the state knows the address and so diligence can't be presumed then as a matter of fundamental fairness and the second prong plain error this work will reach address the issue and send it back for new proceedings in this particular case we argue that the mother in this case was the parent and in some respects was actually worse than having no parent there in this case tyler's mother was also the mother of the complainant and the trial court itself actually recognized this we know she actually feels the pre boil t is feel torn she has three hundred children one with her current husband and she and her current husband have received a letter from d c fs that says if you fail to cooperate in this investigation against over fear of losing her children and then in addition to those sort of inherent pressures that she's feeling and that she acknowledges she's feeling she takes actions that are absolutely inconsistent with a parent trying to protect a child charged with  the first obvious one is she puts him in a car and she drives him twenty miles away to champagne county and she delivers into the office of the c f s knowing that he's going to be interrogated about the offense without ever telling him why he's put in the car without ever asking him if he wants to participate in this interrogation she enters the interrogation room and very shortly thereafter in fact that detective shot  no parent present and this court doesn't require and rape in pre market you to prove any prejudice for the for the fact that there is no parent that's present in fact in tyler asked that one of the arguments was basically the custody end of marcus for quite a while and then also his mother who had very little involvement in marcus's life and they had a known address for grandmother there was a no address you worked but but no one was certain if that was a good in this court said and that's really the point we don't know if you have tried to serve mom we know if it was a good address or not if you had taken that ministerial step of providing notice we'd know and in this all what evidence to she provide that was so helpful to the state should lay some basic foundation testimony about the layout of the house because the incident was alleged to have occurred in a dining room that is directly enjoying a living room where she and at least one of her siblings sitting at the time but then she also talks about how her daughter is intelligent and talkative thereby i think indirectly strained her daughter's credibility in the case and then when the daughter testified she could not recall basically she was basically of no use to the state and the judge primarily made the decision based on the interview that the child had given some time ago is that correct yes i think that we don't know for certain what difference dad would have made but we can imagine it doesn't take a lot of imagine nation to imagine what might have happened the fact that this father wasn't in by default in tyler's life up until this point doesn't mean that his father won't become involved in something as delinquency proceeding has instituted against his child you can imagine this father showing up and saying what's happened to my child support you've got this filthy house you can't seem to take care of my child maybe this is the impetus for to actually become involved in the child's life in a way that he hasn't been before but are we looking at what impact it had on his case the juvenile delinquency case we're not looking at whether or not they could now have a viable for the best interest of the child to look at what's best for the child without a parent's and without a guardian ad litem there is no one in that court room whose task with that obligation and there was no request m that case is that accurate i think it's accurate to say that the parties in the court were puzzled by this residential placement facility put just dropped marcus a champagne county without it and without any adults but he was eighteen at the time he was an adult and could have lived on his own without any parental supervision so even in the case where you've got a child killed by the time the seating occurs is an adult is eighteen years old is living on his own the juvenile court act the requirement that this court stated for decades we've been saying state get your act together and start writing notes to these families because it's just not that difficult and three years later you're back here again with champagne and a case where all it would evidence or the nature of proceedings the act requires it and because we don't know what the what the parent would have provided it's impossible to really precious because you don't know what that here i mean that's again that's really the point you don't know what the father would  what the parent could have done i think that there's it i will admit it takes a little bit of inference but in this case of theory early on the d c m s caseworker left a message from the prosecutor that said we need court involvement because we need to get this into treatment and we don't think we can get him into treatment without or an involvement because we know that mom has some like collect related issues associated with the children i think it's reasonable to infer that we can't get the family treatment in this case because we can't count on mom to follow through if you have a dad present i think that's a very different calculus and if the state house before it and fault father who's willing to make sure that his son pursues treatment the state very well could say this is the kind of case will get this kid into treatment we don't need to take the step of going through a complete delinquency adjudication we don't need to require this child to register as a sex offender for the rest of his natural life if what we can do is we can solve the problem short the juvenile court an act allows and provides the discretion for the state and for counties to do that and again because dad wasn't there we don't know if that would have been a possibility or not but it is within the realm of possibilities that that might have been one of the things but is that something you look at i mean that's a lot of speculation and we know under the plan your analysis that we have to look at whether or not evidence was so closely balance in the we also have to look at whether or not the error seriously affected the fairness of the proceeding so is that really a consideration we should take or are we to look at you know the hearing and make the determination that in the case interrogation and that basically what she like back in harm's way again so we did talk about that but i just want to make sure that i understand from your standpoint that is the number one thing he's ever right yes your honor i would certainly prefer that  inside the front part of his half sister and it wouldn't be reasonable for him to think that if he had made it to that kind of touching and knots and claim that he was sexually aroused for example not claiming that it was  inadvertent touching instead then i would be small for him to think that he could then hit the ass and have the expectation that the police were not going to hold him accountable for that which is what happens when he was first interrogated regarding a the truth take the matter seriously and take responsibility for what he did and he was faced with the accusations and the oxer claim to people believe the girl who was making these accusations and during this activity is anything that's sometimes intelligence who's given all of this is equal needs an attendant to interrogate if only an hour in the morning it's not a situation where there was any sort of of improper contact by the pretty seats the interrogation in the conference room it's tyler's mother taking father putting him in the car driving twenty miles up telling him that this is he's going to be interviewed about this perhaps her motivation at that point isn't to try to help tyler but it's to try to find out what's happened for other daughter and then she's asked to leave them and she goes leaving them shouldn't come back in we have that dynamic going on at least  a report in october fifth that he did not know about these incidents the investigation but that contact gives him actual notice that his child was in trouble but still he doesn't show up so there's no formal notice under the statu case in which the trial court actually cited the lack of the cult supervision in support of the situation said that child and marcus took him to prison so that makes it prejudicial and that's that's a major factor that's totally hearings beginning in the case and this is similar this is like a paris is a grandparent though but it was the man with whom the respondent clipped person whom responded to turn to for the type of support that he's now seeking and wishes that his father developed record to complain about a lack of futility due diligence has to be presumed in this sort of situation because it was not raised below and also was concerning m w about not permitting minors in these sorts of cases to keep this issue in reason that her testimony was in consequential so she described the layout of the house facts not really dispute and describe to her daughters being intelligent talkative the state disagrees those are not anything that  situation where somehow she she's only able to be up a person involved in his life who cares about him the way the state research response brief is he's making the point that his minor was not sole concern for his welfare but i don't know any parent who's going to have nothing but sole concern for his or her child's welfare i mean parents are not like attorneys that's the allegation of the analogy drawn in the defendant's grief and it turning the clients there's the best interests were served by probation so it would not have served the minor to have a guardian ad litum pointed course of action as a guardian ad litem often make recommendations that are opposed to the interest g any discussion has to be prefaced with the fact that the united states supreme court has recognized that children are constitutionally different than adults when it comes to a variety of things and those are based on adolescent development of there are  effective way to get truthful statements out of children is to ask open ended questions of the detective after getting rid of mom out of the room in short order began the interrogation by his own account by starting with an accusation of guilt you believe me interpretation still clearly possibility absolutely your honor because if you accept shaw's testimony as it stands about what happened in that interrogation room yes what shaw alone says and testimony at one point he says i asked the mom to leave because i didn't want to embarrass him i knew it was going to be difficult talking about sex in front of mom and that's the reason we're trying to get mom out of the interrogation room but yet what we know by the end of the interrogation is when tyler is sitting in that chair crying and hunched over that detective hauls that mother back into that interrogation room and makes tyler say everything that he's just told the detective the notion that this detective is trying to the detective is caught in this even within his own testimony with some measure of truth in terms of his in terms of why he did one thing but the evidence is completely the truck were talked about tyler couldn't couldn't articulate why it was he was afraid i don't think anybody who's a sixteen year old is surprised by the idea that a sixteen year old reacts to something or thinks something or feel some way and can't articulate why that's the nature of children that they are not always able to say why it was i was afraid was afraid but i don't know why i was afraid i can articulate it the other is the trial court in this case and we don't find out