this was her first offense this was the first time she had been before any court let alone as district court this is a child who had had a diagnosis a mental illness which had been diagnosed she had by the time of the disposition been a staff just having a passive dependent personality she was a follower not a leader this is a child who during the course of the time custody had made significant progress she had in fact been in family therapy with her family the same lee had been trying to get beyond the past unfortunately as a younger child this young girl had history of substance abuse furthermore she had had a history of sexual abuse in addition to all the problems i had also had a family that was ravaged by alcoholism and all of these facts dr karp testified that this child needed a process where at least thirty to sixty days of in in house presidential treat treatment for controlled substances this was a child who had never had any kind of treatment for for substance abuse and he did it this is a child dr karpf said it needed to be under the guidance of the court this is a child that needed approximately six months and a halfway house after that and d mean you're on i'd like to answer that question what happened in this case is that by the time that we got to the mitigation hearing we were aware that the only options that were presented to the court were level one secured facilities because of the fact that we were aware fact that the court was going was looking at that limited scent of a facilities and what my expert testified to your honor is that my child or the child in question in this case needed a protected environment in a protected environment it's not a secure environment and that is not an institutionalized environment and dr karp testified that in light of the seriousness of things that she believed and you can look to i believe it was one seventy eight or such where dr karp testified that this child needed a protected environment not necessarily a secure environment and your honor i think what we need to look at in this case is that the bottom line is dr karp testified at yarra one seventy six is that this child would be harmed by furthering price durations in fact she testified that incarceration was detrimental to this child was referring to thirty to sixty days your honor for a residential treatment facility and after that she is in terms of the judge's options if he went that route because obligation to post a sentence that is read and cannot look to limitations on that it must impose a sentence that meets the child's needs and is in the best interest of that child and like juvenile if rescue juvenile that is three forty seven to thirty seven and seventy eight that the court must look at the program in this case the santa fe program that was being recommended was not necessarily child who's been involved in a murder needed to be secure facility this can't be an abuse of discretion well i believe they can if you have direct evidence in this need to start off by correcting former counsel indicated that in the exercise of the pressure in the district court here at only secure level one type of sillies two to choose from you know amongst the options which you exactly where i am contending that this is actually not an abuse of discretion or a delegation of authority but an excellent example of the way the process ought to work because what the district court judge did is through pretty probation officer look long term care in order to deal with that multiple group problems and this is where it's also important to be clear about what she actually said we keep hearing about the sixty to ninety days time period be for drug abuse drug and alcohol abuse and then let's say he wasn't in a car separated person that there would be at least a halfway house possible for another six months i feel that he needs to be in an environment where recovery is very very important so that you have a long term sense of being clean and sober and there are lots of other places where she reiterates that long term so the this these numbers that have been thrown out to you are by no means maximums or other minimums at least she should have this and it was on the presupposition that there would be continuing after care if you will after the child had gone through whatever the bureau of prisons had to offer but what the parties discovered after this particular hearing was that the newly in action supervised release provisions for juveniles would not apply they were considered to be ex post facto and so that's why the co presented with basically two options flat out permission to go into one of these programs who didn't offer long enough treatment and programs to do the job or paid for this the defense counsel indicated that there were some some kinds of sources of funding some from tribal sources and so forth that might have been applicable but basically what we're getting down to here is in fact rather than a separation of powers problem because the court delegated its authority through the bureau of prisons as it will be a separation of powers problem of cooperative rather confrontational thing that was done in this case where they actually were negotiating and discussing what is best for this child and be a piece of look we have seen the thing yeah it's always and because of the unique needs of this trial for her rehabilitation this is going to center because this is the only way that she will have adequate time to actually have a decent chance a rehabilitation  karp the defense by the p o by the bureau of prisons and said in my discretion she specifically use that term this is the best possible way to deal with this child it's in her best interest to do this th totally different from the u s versus juvenile where that particular judge is evidence was on deterrence and basically punishment for the young man's sexual activities  apples and oranges totally different case and in fact she's this district court judge took the extra time to hold a second hearing specifically because she was going out of her way to comply with us risa juvenile which to be there and that's what happened in this case this child is going to be taken out of after three years the sentence when she's seventeen years old and going to be placed back in her community there will be  transition she will not be eligible for any kind of halfway house as a juvenile his she will only be seventeen subsequent to that she will be placed back in her community and there will be no transition so in doing this this was not walker to have her go here as a condition of probation is there any way she could have that operate the financing for i think that's exactly what didn't happen and that's why it's an abuse of just question the court could have enlisted both the government and the probation office to determine from not only from what the probation funding could have been but what could have been available through title my teen which is a medicaid program and could have also seen what kind of tribal funds would have been available in this case for th that never happened and that is the problem because the federal juvenile system is not set up to be able to be flexible enough to meet the needs of children if santa fe we knew that th programs available but we don't know how long they were we don't know if she was going to be in a thirty to sixty day program and after that what was going to happen we don't know that their educational program wasn't just you have your ged book and if you're lucky enough maybe you'll get a teacher and in fact that's what is happening unfortunately in this case and therefore it's clear and santa fe didn't necessarily have those programs and there is no guarantee of treatment just because a child is being sent