think it's very odd that they took no position below and now are they here asleep you did file a motion to strike or or dismiss them from this case or stop them from oral argument presenting are right right because they are already below and i think is unhappily you don't have to preserve says a juvenile must be under the age of thirteen or under that that statute must be followed and you're seeking to expand the holding in the half to address this case and we all can agree that the juvenile  fifteen years sixteen years old through right well first of all that age has changed since you have so that's some of the difference in the cases at the time that you it was decided if a juvenile delinquent is thirteen or older the decided that an amendment to that statute had to happen in order to address problems that couldn't be addressed because of the wording of the stand but actually we weren't saying that the minor couldn't be placed with us have the child placed with them on the basis of the link was he alone but it also said that if there truly is an independent basis of abuse neglect or dependency then pursuant to article two and the legislature put that explicitly in section regarding that specific language if you're saying that article two must be followed and a petition for neglect must be filed and once a petition for neglect the filed all the procedural steps be intertwined so this is a point that if for example the parents don't as they may have been here if you listen to the brass to the probation officer nobody's addressed that in their brief the fact that the probation officers petition of course then i'm going to go to court i think they have a stronger interest in defending themselves if the juvenile had an attorney first of all so they didn't need to speak for him as a mouthpiece second i think there is a difference between saying this goes to justice or you're saying that the filing of a neglect petition must precede this judge walsh's action because the best interests of the minor dictate that what he's saying if the best interests of the parents think that and really the can understand that the information provided would change based on the purpose you were trying to solicit that information for sure because first of all it's hearsay so the things that the that the interviewee said her might not have been true and across  he's been living with his father and his paternal grandmother for a number of years and apparently at some point there were a lot of confrontations between the father and son according to the probation report because the father had rules such as chores curfews things like that and that and the son was refusing to abide chris view of what the trial judge was doing he wasn't concerned nest sic what was driving his decision wasn't the upcoming birth date as much as the circumstances that the child was a kid and i call him a  because we have to disagree about what it means i think that you should construed in a way that would be constitutional and you can sort of better way that the parents have been denied there let me ask you this regarding the there's there are always two questions you know constitutional as written or constitutional as apply is there really any real question that as to the periods that are involved in this case that their constitutional rights have not been bought yet up to this point that you could interpret that's why you asked originally whether the statutes and if you whether the statute is suggesting that allegations from something like a probation report is a sufficient probationary report to conclude that they're not interested anyway that's basically what the trial judge said is that i mean the problem with that is in every other sort of neglect and abuse case there can be horrific allegations of torture probably those currents get al allegations being unsubstantiated if that's your position and then the other reality and the reality is that this trial does not have a place to be and in fact that's really one of my questions if you have best interest is really guiding judicial action in the juvenile court what should have judge walsh done regarding where that child was going once he left the court what do you do with it now what we think should have happened is he shouldn't have waited till the day of sentencing to bring the department and what if that's the situation that you know the case load and juvenile quirk forces a judge into when you have a sentencing order that's when you  t your effort into the case and that's when everything comes to logic where the probation officer certainly knew that the child could not be located and she could have notified the department and the judge received that report prior to the sentencing so he could have instructed hours so far in that period if it's truly a dangerous environment or the child is homeless or whatever the department will provide temporary care until things can be figured out and that's that we may like wish share all  end up the child so that he would go back to living with the father although only if he could continue to live wanting all the rules that sounds and making it look like water like this also has collateral consequences if they don't like it and i'm sure they wel good morning my name is kathy alliance and i'm here on behalf of the minor katie and from the james beamer and center for youth advocacy which was formerly named the evidence and community defender i sense that you actually want to hear from the that the judge got it right the judge did exactly what the juvenile court requests require so how did the judge get it right that the judge get it right up based on the language that he interpreted or based on the result that he thought with the right i think actually both judge will help us out of the way let me just take one step back and you've already articulated the overarching framework that we should be working from is the best interests of the minor child not well i think before we get there we have to make sure that the language allows that you were an opportunity to address absolutely the best interest and when we look at the plane in ordinary language i think there's no ambiguity here also we need to construe and although i disagree that the department's most recent submission of the case has any epic billeted to this case the supreme court did give some guidance in terms of statutory citric instruction that is that we have to look at the whole statute this is a small and let me just look in terms of the context of sentencing what were judge russia's options here we could well frankly if you look at the bigger options you could order a gang tattoo removed medically you could order someone into substance abuse you i think it's clear that pursuant to article two of this language references the definition of abuse neglect and dependency but if you read the entire statute it describes you have to have an independent basis if that's if it's as to say goes  merely hear that the parents were incapable or unable to take care of haiti their side everything the all they got was this was the probation officers view of the case i think an important point that is in the record that hasn't been brought out yet is that father and grandmother were both in court mother never appeared mother to father actually mother has never responded to anything father and grandmother both we're in a situation where they were basically going to be homeless fathers apartment building was foreclosed father currently either it's not a record but father just we don't know where a father is living now send me any indication but it didn't make any difference that the mary allegations of the probation officer were sufficient for the judge to find that he was in the glass there is busy every one of that you say was in court he was in court anybody indicate to him that his i can't think of a single procedure in india entire juvenile court echoing then the structure for child dependency where the parents the natural parents of the  been could have been followed it would have been filed to two things on it and i think it would have to read i will just if i may respond to two things number one there would be a whole nother separate petition for termination that's a whole nother proceeding under article two but may i just say my second point and that is that were the parental rights was the effect on the price if the only other option for this child is being home and then d o c own home is that better for the is that better for the  jurisdictional and the kid turned seventeen he was right about that wasn't he had said here in which case the child would have been in the body home for i mean i think we need to look at where was the judge where was the child and what would be happening robbie supposing this all of us things are interesting things to speculate about where he might be all i'm suggesting to you is that you were telling us that your interpretation of the statute is such that an allegation can do it now if it makes it makes him require to find an independent basis exists which means it is not an adjudication independent basis it's merely an allegation i am using your work but it is an allegation  why is there no adjudication of neglect based on what respectfully i believe the judge walsh as evidence by the record was a little bit confused as to where on the roof things and it's very easy because in child protection law and the in quincy law there are a lot of different age requirements am not sure why this hearing was held ex parte but just because we weren't there doesn't mean that we as the people don't have an interest in what's going on with the kids while we heard her say she tory basis for being in this for a long time this could boil down to something as simple as a turf war among various agencies ok now as i understand the record from what i've been able to glean from the record is that the trial judge in this case was really annoyed with the department of children and family services they did not want to take this kid until all of the procedures for statute makes clear that in order for us to take him based on the lack somebody has to make a finding of a play we've had you're seeing all this trial judge can order the department take this child even though that neglect hasn't been filed it's the one story your being a former state former strike former a state's attorney when trial judges try to tell the department of corrections what to do with people who have been exists where where exactly exactly at the department of children and family services was saying in this particular case is the statute is clear we don't take a kid who's been in the galactic intel a petition from the collective truly neglected we have no problem with taking him but we think that they need to go through the proper procedures of allowing the parents i was never taken there is your honor i mean one of the reasons that i cited that case which counsel thinks is totally wrong is because there's a nice summary of article two procedures and it been collateral proceedings going on at the same time if there truly were independent neglect allegations the other thing i want to talk about is the reason for th the judges make a finding that the child was collected based on the probation officer's representation that neither parents wanted the child to live with them is it is that the same thing as  representations of the probation officer but to be neglected something has to be doing the collecting and if the child is running away from home is a bitch will run away he's dependent which is sort of a no fault category where it would not be stigmatizing for the parents to generally i i'm just curious how is this stigma ties thing and in this particular case in light of what is already out well what's out there is it's all about his mugging which the parents had nothing to do with this is it that we can sleep somewhere else to have more  act now the department can keep and he doesn't have to say he has to go to what used to be called the audio of the other thing is there could be a case where a child is not a leak might put on probation place that with his parents and then six months later the parents are killed in a car accident well that's