No. 3-06- 0425

______________________________________________________________________________ APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2007

______________________________________________________________________________ Fi le d October 18, 2007. In Re C.S ., a Mi nor ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) f or th e 1 0th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, ) Peor ia County, Ill in ois, T he Pe o ple o f t he St at e o f I llino is ) ) Petitioner-A

ppelle e, ) 05-JA-163 ) v. ) ) Honorable D avi

d J. Dubi cki Natal i e S., ) Judge, Presi din g. ) Re sp on den

t-A pp el l an t. )

______________________________________________________________________________

MODIFIED UPON DENIAL OF PETITI ON FOR REHEA RING JUSTICE McDADE d eli vered the opi ni on of the court:

______________________________________________________________________________ Foll owing a heari ng i n the ci rcuit court o f Peori a County, C.S. was f ound to be a
ne gl ected a

nd d epen den t mi nor. Re spon

den t mother, Na

tal i e S., wa s su

bs eque ntl y f ound u nf i t. Res ponde nt m other, Na tal i e S., rai

ses the f oll owi ng q ues tions on a

ppea l : (1) Di d the tria l court err i n de ny i ng h er m otion s f or a m en tal ex am i na tion? (2 ) Wa s the

re suf f i cien t evi den ce to sup port t he finding o f neglect ? and ( 3) Did t he t rial co ur t exce ed it s jurisd ictio n in fi nding r esp ond ent unfi t? Upon review, we reverse and remand f or furt her proce edin

gs. FA CTS C.S . wa s b orn

on J ul y 3, 2 005 . On

A ugu st 1 , 20 05, the

State f i l ed a tw o-cou

nt p eti ti on for adjud icat ion o f war dship, alleging t hat C. S. was neglec t ed p ur sua nt t o s ect ion 2 -3 (1 )( b) o f the2

Juve nile Cou rt Act of 1 987 (Act ) ( 705 ILC S 4 05/ 2- 3( 1) (b) (Wes t 200 6) ) a nd wa s de pend ent pur sua nt t o s ect ion 2 -4 (1 )( b) o f the Act (7 05 I LCS 405 /2 -4 (1 )( b) ( West 200 6) ). In c ou nt I o f the petition, the State all

eged that the mi

nor’s env ironm ent is in juri ous to her wel

fare i n that
res pon de nt s uf f ers f rom ps ych ol ogical prob l em s a nd i s u nd er th e g ua rdi an sh i p of the State of I llino is. I n c o un t I I o f t he pe t it io n, t he St at e a lleg ed t ha t C. S. is a de pe nd en t mino rin t ha t she is wit ho ut pr o pe rca r e d ue t o r es po nd en t ’s men t al d isa bilit y. On Ja n ua ry 3, 2 00 6, r

es pon den t f i l ed a p eti ti on f or m en tal ex am i n ati on to deter m i n e b oth he rfit ne ss t o st an d t r ial o n t he St at e’ s c ha r ge s a nd t o o bt ain a c ur r en t an d c o mple t e d iag no sis
concer nin g her alleged psychiatr ic condition. T he tr ial cou rt summ

arily denied respo ndent’s pet itio n. At t he ad

judicat ion hea ring o n Janu ar y 23, 200 6, app oint ed c ou nsel for re spo ndent
made a su b se qu en t oral moti on f or a men tal ex am i n ati on of re sp on den

t. U pon h ea ri n g a rgum en t, t he t rial co ur t aga in denied r esp ond ent ’s mot ion. Durin g the adj udic ator y h

earin g, the Stat e sought to in

tro duce respondent’s m

edi cal
re co rd s. E xhibit 3 c ons iste d o f not at ions p re par ed by Dr . P at ella-Ko bler st at ing t hat t he resp onde nt ad m i tted that sh

e kn ew she waspregn

an t in Jan uary but she did not se ek pre

na tal care beca use of t he co st and be cau se she did no t kno w pr enat al car e wa s impor t ant . S he ad mitt ed s he di d n ot tel l th e docto r s h e w as

pr eg n an t ev en th oug h sh e h ad b een wa rned m ul ti pl e ti mes n ot to ge t pre gnan

t. Dr . Pa tel l a-K obl er a l so n oted tha t the res pon de nt d i d n ot se em to un de rs tan d how much care a newbo rn requ ires. Exhibi t 3 was admitte d into evidence o ver resp ondent ’s foundational

and rel evan ce obj ections. Li

kewi se, respondent obj ected to the Stat e’s ex hi bi t 5, which consis

ted o f m edical recor ds from Methodist Medical Center. E xhi

bi t 5 co ntains a
sum mary report ref

eren ci ng a cons ul tation Dr. Thena Poteat had wi th res ponde nt at Me thodi st.3

The s um mar y repor t sta tes i n perti n en t pa rt:

“ Dr . Pot ea

t deter m i n ed th at th e p ati en t h ad sch izoph re n i a wi th po ssible schizo affect ive diso rd er and d et er mined t hat t he pa t ient
wasnot ab l e to adequ

atel y care f or her n ewb orn b aby . ” Dr. Poteat’s

conc l usi on i s b ase d on the f

act tha t respon den t fa i l ed to obtai

n pr oper pre na tal care for her unbo rn c hild and failed t o c eas e t aking he r p sycho t ro pic medica t ion while pr egna nt . T he
r ep o r t als o ind ica t es , ho we ve r , t ha t r es po nd en t is “a t he rba se line a nd * * * s t ab le p syc hia t r ica lly on her cur

ren t psy chotropicmedi

cation reg i

men .” It i s un

clear w hen th i s rep ort was pre

pared
. Exhi bi t 5 was als o admi

tt ed i nto evide nce over responden

t’s foundational

and rel evan ce obj ections. Te rr i Kope ny of t he Office o f the St at e Gu ar dian wa s t he St at e’s s ole w itnes s at t he adj udi catory he ari ng. K open y testi f i ed th at the Sta

te of Il l i noi s had guardi

an sh i p ove r resp ondent. Kope ny work ed wi th res pon de nt f or ab out e i gh

t yea rs an d w oul d v i si t he r at h ome m onth l y f or ab o ut 10 minu t es . Sh e n o t ed t ha t r es po nd en t lived wit h he rpa r en t s a nd she st at ed t ha t t he ho me was a sa fe enviro nment. The only t ime Kope ny has had t o he lp re spo ndent wit h making de cisions is w he n sh e a pp lied t o ge t a me dic al c ar d. Sh e a dd ed t ha t r es po nd en t is e mplo yed at Ma r sha ll Fi el dsan d ta ke s h er med i ca ti on as pr es cri b ed . D es pi te th i s te sti mon y an d h er ad m i tted i n ab i l i ty to provide an

y i nf ormation ab out respondent’s day -to -day dec is ion-m

aki ng ski ll s, Kopeny testifi ed that she would be c oncern

ed ab out responden

t’s ab i l i ty to care f

or C.S. Res ponde nt testi f i ed on her own b ehalf

at the a dj udicatory

he ari ng. S he stated that Dr. Po t eat had o nly m

et wit h her one t ime shor t ly after she g ave birt h t o C .S . C .S . w as no t pr ese nt dur i ng thi s enc oun ter. Re sp ond

en t al so n oted tha t sh e h ad atte nd ed the Un i ve rs i ty of Iowa f or4

ab out three y

ears . Fol l owi ng a rgum en t, the tri al court en tered a n adj udicatory

order f i ndi ng C ounts I a

nd I I of t he St at e’s p et itio n pr ove n by a pr epo nder ance of t he evide nce. In c oming t o t his co nclusio n, the c ourt reli ed h

eav i l y upon r esp ondent’s

al l eged f ai l ure to provi

de suf f i cien t prenatal care . Speci fi cally , the court stated: “[The attorney f

or respondent] seems to make the argumen

t t hat the mot her can do whate ver she want s to do w hil e preg nant. I t’s her f etus, so t o speak, and i f s

he wishes to not t ake care of i

t, t hen the Stat e has n

ot hi ng to do with i

t. I do n’t bel

ie ve that that argumen t is correct. She may

choose to do what she wi shes to do with i t, with the fe

tus, but you know, there are time s, I mean spe cifically

by sta t ut e, if a mot her ingest s co caine o r w hat ever , a nd it wi nds up i n the uri ne or mec onium

of the chi

ld, that’s an aut omat ic basis fo r ne glect . * * * I t hink when yo u lo ok at -- she
wa s tol d re pe ate dl y tha t, y ou kn ow, i f the re’ s a pos si bi l i ty you becom e pregnan t, you should n

ot be on these m

edi cations, an

d I t hink t hat sho ws t he fact t hat she c ont inued t o t ake t hem, t hat t he child h ad to be on watch afterwar ds, t hat shows a lack of awareness and lac k o f app re ciat ion as t o t he ap pr op riat e pr enat al car e and obv i ous l y l eadsto, I th

i nk a s trong i nf ere nc e that s he

woul d n ot have the j udgme

nt to provide postnatal

care.” At the May

15, 2006, disposi

tional heari ng, Jen ni fer K ei th, the caseworker test if

ie d that5

she a ske d T er ri Ko peny t o s ign a r elease , a s gu ar dian o f resp ond ent ’s pe rso n, so t hat re spo ndent could obtai

n a paren ting ca paci ty asse ssm

ent. Kopeny

refuse d to sign the release, i nsistin g that respondent i s unab le

to parent due to her mental il ln ess. Kopeny

concl uded that social

servi ces wo uld be un ne ce ss ar y and no t be ne ficia l. Ke it h, ho we ve r , in he rdis po sit io na l re po r t da t ed Ap r il 18, 200 6, re co mmended t hat re spo ndent re ceive a psychiat ric eva luat ion fro m her cu rr ent ps y ch i atrist, Dr. N aw as , an

d that re sp ond

en t rec ei ve a p are nti ng ca pa ci ty as se ssmen

t an d j ob traini ng. Up o n t he co nc lus io n o f t he dis po sit io na l he ar ing , t he t r ial c o ur t fo un d r es po nd en t un fit and d et er mined t hat it w as in t he bes t inter est s o f the minor t o be made a war d o f the co ur t . T he
cou rt al so o rd ered

th e O f f i ce of th e S tate Gu ardi an to ex ecute al l au th ori za ti on s a n d r el ea se s wi th
re ga rd to th e res pon den t’s psych i atr i c trea tmen t an d ev al ua ti on . Th e c our t ordered re sp on den

t to continue her psy chi atric treatment and ordered a separate psy chi atric exa m. It als o or dered a parentin g capaci ty asse ssm

ent and j ob traini

ng. Thi s appeal

fol lowed. AN AL YSIS Responden

t fi rst argues that t he trial

court erred in

deny in g her two requests for a men tal examinat ion p rio r t o a nd at t he beg inning of t he ad judicat or y hearing. Resp ond ent asse rt s t hat t he
exam in ation was n

ecessary in order t o obt ai

n a com ple te and current diagn

osis rel ating to her alle ged psy

chi atric condi

tion. Responden

t mai ntain s that only

after such

dia gnosi s had b een m

ade would i t be possible

to assess and determi

ne the v alidi ty of the State’s negl

ect and dependa

ncy charges . Res olu

tion of re spon

den t’s c l ai m on thi s i ssue requ

i res a n exa m i na tion of the statutory procedures establi

shed i n the Juv eni le Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq . (West 2006) ).6

T he pu r po se o f an ad

jud ica t o ry hea r ing is t o de t er mine w he t he rt he fac t ua l alle ga t io ns in the dependancy an

d neglect petition are suppo rted by a prepo nderance of evi

dence. 705 ILCS 405/2 -18(1) (We st 2006 ). Once a chi l d has b een

adj udicated a

bus ed or negl

ected, th e tri al court must determine wh

ether t he parent is unf

it to have phy

sical custo dy of the chi

ld an d whether, as a
co nseq uenc e o f any unfitness , it is in the be st inter est s o f the child t o be made a war d o f the
co ur t . 7 05 IL CS 40 5/ 2- 22 (1 ) W es t 20 06 ). A t ria l co ur t may pla ce t he mino r in t he c us t o dy o f a sui tabl e rel ati ve or com m i t the m i nor to an agen cy f or care a nd s ervi ces

i f the tri al court det er mines tha t t he pa re nt s “[a ]r e unfit or ar e una ble, t o c ar e fo r, pr ot ect , t ra in or discipline t he minor o r a re unwilling to do so , a nd t hat t he hea lth, safet y, and best inter est of t he minor will be je opardized if the m

in or remai ns i n the custody of

hi s or her parents, guardian or custo dia

n * * *.” 705 ILCS 405 /2-27( 1) (West 20 06). T he standard o f proof in a trial cour t’s fi ndi ng of unf itness t hat do es no t re sult in complet e t er minatio n of a ll pare nt al right s is a pr epo nder ance of t he
evi den ce. In re April C ., 326 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 24 5, 257, 7 60 N.E.2 d 101, 1 10 (20 01). Her e, t he St at e has bro ught a t wo -c ou nt co mplaint alleging t hat C. S. is a neg lect ed a nd de pe nd en t mino r . T he so le b as is fo rt his c o mpla int r es t s in t he alle ga t io n t ha t r es po nd en t is
men tally disab led and suf

fers f rom psych

ological pro blems. Respondent has denied these all egations. Before t he comm encem ent of the adjudicatory hearin g on t hese al

legations, resp onde nt twice pe

titi oned the tri al court (onc e i

n a wri tten m otion and onc e oral

l y ) to order a
men tal ex am i n ati on f or her so t h at a cu rre n t an d c om pl ete ev al ua ti on cou l d b e e sta b l i sh ed as to her psy chologi cal f i tnes s. Both

thes e m otion s we re den i ed. W e f i nd th at thi s wa s error. Under the ci

rcums tances of this case, when the State begi ns n egl ect or dependency pr oc eed ings o n the sole ground tha t res pon de nt i s m en tal l y di sa bl ed an d suf f ers f rom7

psycho log ical pr oblems, we find t hat it w ou ld be bo t h re aso nable and pr act ical to gr ant re spo ndent ’s pe t itio n for a ment al examinat ion. In su ch a c ase , a menta l examinatio n pr ot ect s t he accuracy and f ai rness of the adj udic ation by

ensuri ng that both the parties an d the court have a current and compl

ete diagn osis of respondent’s m

ental condi tion. Wi thout such an

updated dia gn o sis , t he r isk t ha t a p ar en t migh t be er r o ne o us ly de pr ive d o f he rcu st o dia l rig ht s is substantially

in creased. Perhaps m

ore im port antly , however, is

the fact t hat the trial

court ’s den

ia l of re sp on den

t’s re qu ests f

or a men tal ex am i n ati on i n ef f ec t str i pp ed h er of th e op por tun i ty to develop any meani

ngful ev idence to chall

enge t he St ate ’s all

egat ions. We fi

nd the S tat e’s
res pon se tha t res pon de nt c oul d have p ai

d f or h er ow n e xa m i na ti on to b e n

othi ng sh ort of di si n gen uou s i n l i gh t of th e f ac t th at res

pon den t h ad al re ad y b een de em ed i n di gen t. We b elie ve that i n cases where the State’s sole b asi s f or t he ass erted negle ct is grounded i n i ts al l eg ati on of the mothe r’ s c l ai med men tal di sa bi l i ty , i t sta nds to re as on th

at the a va i l ab i l i ty of
a cu rr ent and c omp lete menta l examinatio n wo uld no t only significantly impro ve t he ability of t he tri al cou rt to cor rectl y rul e on the va l i di ty of the State ’s al l eg ati ons , but wou

l d al so a l l ow respondent an opportunity to present the trial court with a

dditional , and clearly

relev ant, evidence, perhap s f rom ex pert w i tn es se s, con

cern i n g h er men tal sta te, an d m orei m por tan tl y , her ab i l i ty to care for, support and pro vi de for C.S. Overal

l, al lowi ng f or a mental

exam in ation at this

stage and in t hese circu msta nces pr ovid es t he t rial co ur t wit h a clea re r u nder st anding o f the
r es po nd en t ’s ca pa bilit ies an d o f t he be st av aila ble av en ue s a lo ng wh ich t o pr o ce ed
. Ac co r di ng ly, t he av aila bilit y o f a me nt al e xa minat io n be fo r e t he ad jud ica t o ry hea r ing wo uld sig nific an t ly enhanc e co mpliance wit h t he st at ut e, which pr ovid es t hat t he pu rp os e o f an adjud icat or y hearing i s to determ

i ne wh ethe r the f actual al l egati ons i n the dep endan

cy and ne gl ect peti

tion are8

supported by a preponderan ce of ev ide nce. Here , the tri

al courtre ject ed t he r esp ond ent ’s r equ est s for a ment al examinat ion befo re t he adj udi catory he ari ng, b ut ordered , sua sp onte , a

psy ch i atr i c ex am i n ati on of re sp on den

t after f i ndi ng h er un f i t. We find t he pr oc edu re employed by the t rial co ur t t o be co unt er intu itive. If t he que st ions be for e t he co ur t at t he ad judicat or y and disp os itio nal hear ings ar e: ( 1) whet her t he mino ris ne gle ct ed o n t he ba sis o f he rpa r en t ’s men t al d isa bilit y; a nd ( 2) wh et he rt he r es po nd en t is
unf i t on th e b as i s of such al l eg ed men tal di sa bi l i ty , i t se em s e ss en ti al tha t the men tal exam i na ti on shoul d be com pl eted b ef ore thes e que sti ons a

re answe red. In f ail i ng to do so, the tri al

court ef f ec ti v el y b ar s b oth pa rties f rom dev el opi n g th e c om pl ete an d cur re n t ev i den ce n ec es sa ry to answer t hese quest ions. We ther efore c onclude t hat t he tr ial cou rt erre d in deny

ing responde nt’s pet itio ns for a ment al examinat ion. Bec aus e o f this er ro neo us d enial, t his cau se must be
reman ded. For that r eason, we do not reach the respondent’s argum ents concerni

ng the ev ide nce of ne glect and jur isdict ion. I n c o ming t o t his c o nc lus io n w e n o t e t ha t we ha ve r ev iew ed t he Fir st Dis t r ict ’s de cis io n in In re Charles , 367 Ill . App. 3d 800, 856 N.E.2d 569 ( 2006), and fi nd i t distin guis hab le . There, the State f i l ed a j uven i l e n eg l ec t pe ti

ti on on the basis th at the re sp ond

en t su f f ere d f rom schi zophrenia. Prior to the best interest hear ing , t he r esp ond ent re que st ed a co mpet ency hea ring to deter mi

ne her f itness to st and trial. The trial cour t denied the motion. Upo n review, t he Fi rst Dis trict aff irm ed on the basi

s that delay

in g the best i

nterest heari

ng, f or a competency

heari ng, would further delay

a child’s i

nterest in fi ndi ng a permanen

t home and frustrat e the St ate’s parens patriaei ntere st i n pr omoti ng th e wel f are of the chi l d. In re Charles , 367 Ill . App. 3d at 803-04, 856 N.E.2d at 573.9

The situ at ion befo re t he First Dist rict in Charles is procedurall

y di ff erent from

the case at bar. As we

have di scussed, responden t here petitioned the tri al

court to order her men

tal
exa minat io n be fo re t he a dju dic at o ry he ar ing. While w e r ec o gniz e t he u nde rlying pu rp o se o f a juv en ile p r o ce ed ing is t he pr o t ec t io n o f t he ch ild fr o m ne gle ct o rab us e, t he fac t o r s r elie d u po n in Charles , su ch as t he inte re st s o f the child, a re not element s t o be co nsider ed d ur ing t he adj udic ator y h

earin g. Because n

one of these i

nterests were at issue w

hen petitioner requested her examinat ion, we find t he ho lding in Charles di sti ngu i shab l e. CONCLUSION Wh i l e we r ecogn ize that there

i s n o statute or court rul

e requ i ri ng a tria l court to order a
me ntal e xam in ation be fore conductin

g an adj udic ator y h

earin g and that i

n m ost cases the absen

ce of such a rule is ful

ly warrante d, we believe that such an exam in ation is n ecessary i n the case wh er e t he r es po nd en t r eq ue st s a n e xa m an d t he St at e’ s e nt ire juv en ile ne gle ct pe t it io n r es t s s o lely upon the alle gation that the respondent i s m entally dis abl ed or suff ers from psy chol ogical pr ob l em s. W e th eref orere v er se

th e tr i al cou rt’ s f i n di n g of n eg l ec t an

d dep en den cy i n re ga rd to C.S. and al so its f

in din g of unf itnes s i n regard to respo nden

t, and we reman

d this cause to t he trial
co ur t wit h instr uct ions t hat a ment al examinat ion and par ent ing asse ssment of t he r esp ond ent be und ertaken pr

i or to a new a

dj udicatory

he ari ng. Rev erse d an d rem anded. SCHMIDT, J., c oncu

rs. JUSTICE WRIGHT speci ally concurrin

g: I s pe ci al l y con cu r wi th th e m aj ori ty de ci si on b ec au se

I b el i eve there has b een a

de ni al of pr oc edu ra l due p ro ces s for t he mot her in this ca se. On ap pea l, re spo ndent mot her ar gue s t he10

circu it co ur t violat ed he r p ro ced ur al due pr oc ess r ight s by denying her t he o ppo rt unit y to be
exam in ed by an i mpa rtial psy chi atric expe rt prior t o t he n

egl ect and depende

ncy heari ngs. I agree. Th ere i s p rec ed en

t i n th e c as e l aw f or th e c ourt to orde r th e Sta te to b ea r th e c ost of pr ov i di n g a n ex pert f or th e pur pos e of pr otecti n g th e m oth er ’s pr oce du ra l du e p roc es s r

i gh ts when the Stat e’s ex

pert is b iased. Our suprem e court has recognized that the appoi ntmen t o f an
ex pe r t , at t he St at e’ s e xp en se , is ne ce ss ar y in ce r t ain sit ua t io ns. A p er so n a t t emp t ing t o sho w t he ir own recovery f

rom sex ual dangerousnes s m

ay have a psy

chi atric expe rt appo in ted when i

t is cl ear t he St at e’ s e xp er t s w ill no t be pr o vid ing an un bia se d o pin io n o f t he men t al s t at us o f t he se xu ally dan gerous pers on. People v. Burns , 20 9 I ll. 2 d 5 51 , 57 4 ( 20 04 )
. An a na lo gy ma y be d r aw n in those situat ions i

nvolv in g the reco very petiti ons of sexually dangerous per sons. In t his case , t he St at e r elied up on t he t est imony of Te rr i Kope ny, mot her ’s S t at e gu ar dian, as thei r sole wi tness duri ng the adj udic ator y h

earin g. However, the appointed State guardian i gn ored the mothe r’ s wi sh esto un de rgo a pa ren ti ng eval ua ti on a nd ref us ed to con sent to a parentin g capaci ty asse ssm

ent requested by

the minor ’s caseworker, Ms. Kei th, from K

id’ s Hope Unit ed. The gua rd ian’s bias in favo r o f the St at e’s p os itio n is very evide nt fro m the r eco rd . T he State gua rdi an f orm ul ate d her ow

n d eterm i na ti on th at the m othe r wa s u nf i t an d hal ted the f l ow of
n eu tral i n f orm ati on th at m ay h av e a ss i ste d th

e c our t. Th e S tate gu ardi an ’s re f us al to co ope ra te pr ev en t ed mo t he rfr o m p r es en t ing a d ef en se t o t he S t at e’ s a lleg at io ns o f ne gl ec t an d d ep en de nc y. In m y opi nion, a neutral ex

pert is the key

to fun dam ental fai rness an d due process in

this uni que case. I have serious concerns that t he guardian di d not possess t he authority to refuse pe rm i ss i on to c ons en

t to medi cal

or ps y ch ol ogi cal ca re a nd may ha ve ac ted be y ond the sc opeof11

h er au th ori ty as gu ardi an of th e e sta te on l y . Th e L ette rsof Of f i ce i ss ue d to th e O f f i ce of Sta te Gu ardi an, re v i ew ed b y th e c i rc ui t cou rt in camera , a

reca pti on ed “ Pl en ar y Gu ardi an of th e E sta te of A Di sab l ed Person .” It is feasible, ba sed on t he r eco rd , t he Office o f St at e Gu ar dian o nly cont ro lled t he
mo t he r ’s fina nc ial r es o ur ce s a s p aye e fo rhe rSo cia l Se cu r it y ben efit s. T he lac k o f cla r it y o n t his i ss uepe rm ea tesevery l evel of the ci rcu i t cou rt’ s a na l y sis. A cl ea r determ i na ti on of the sc opeof guardian shi p should be a pri

ma ry conce rn af ter remand. The req uest ed evaluation sho uld be completed at the S tat e’s expense and t he mother ’s consent to t hose procedures should be valida ted. For the f oregoi ng r eas ons, I spe cial l y conc ur.