together they did have a child and let's assume that she paid all premiums on the policy would it be equitable to then award someone else as a fifty percent beneficiary on that same see if she took out the policy hel the language minor children however the swash days also adds a perfect in that same paragraph during the pendency of the minority of children so the expressed language of that  difference between children in mind and if we don't believe if we don't rule that there's a difference then is the word minor just so perfect and are we supposed to interpret things to the extent that we're not going determine the intent of the parties in that case and in that case the court determined based on the consent decree that the reference to minor children there's a specific refer premise and that you know most even parents that are not divorced don't generally take on these kinds of obligations that you're suggesting be taken on this case and state is that we provide for our  is provided in order to assure that the child support is being paid for but this is a contract between the parties they're free to contract any way they want and further evidence of an intent in this situation the language was not meant to restrict the obligation to the minority of the children the next revision down in the consent decree after the life insurance policy he owes with educational expenses and the life insurance he presently asked with that vote sheltering as irrevocable beneficiaries there under that's different language here and there is no minor children i throughout and not minor children sometimes and just children other times because of the holiday provision college expense provision which would be rendered illogical if we interpret minor children to restrict it to the minority and the fact that the consent decree here doesn't specifically contain the language at plymouth said i believe the correct interpretation is that the  equitable and forcible right to a constructive trust over the proceeds the other issue that we're dealing with is it all dependent child the work and i believe that's a much simpler and he doesn't reside with the surviving spouse on the date of death back he's institutionalized in america right now he begged her begging her decision by this court i believe support that and also it begs decision that back to court at that time was looking to address whether the disabled child needed to be financially dependent i need to see that if a child is an adult who is dependent defined as being unable to maintain himself and let him to become a public charge he must be given the requisite award under the statute the danger work recognize the children versus minor children issue aside for a second can we talk about whether this these benefits were available through his i mean yes judge not there's evidence in  source shareholder of that practice and he had certain control over whether to provide the policy through his employer in addition its understeer did we know when the record right now that these two of the ward and the core of reverse the decision of the trial court and impose a destructive trust over fifty percent of the insurance proceeds thank you we're here today because judge riley in lower court probate court denied the petitions petition for child to work and on a two six one thousand motion dismissed the claim for insurance this we have a very i'll just use the word unequivocal ruling from judge riley as to what his practice has been in the probate court as to the interpretation of this particular statute what is the statute tell us that supports you statute says at the beginning part judge it talks about if a minor were adult and in child the first of the deceiving does not reside with the surviving spouse then they are entitled to an award that a word is a sum of money that the court deems reasonable for the proper support of the child for the period of nine months after the death of the deceased and in a manner suited to the condition in life of the minor child it does not say adult dependent child this is the wording of the statute fifteen to a for whatever it's worth fifteen to be was indignant fifteen to be does not have  up there's no recitation in either briefs as to what it is that what the legislative history is but i would submit to the court that a few things it's clear from the reading of this statute just the language of the statute  there's an equivalency to minors and adults and children they are on the same footing the court treats them in the same manner and by the way they are also treated the same in responses in that if there wasn't enough money in the state to provide for all the stuff they are each ratcheted down ratably which is why the the definition of adoptive parent child shouldn't be taken lightly if they're equivalent i interpret the later part of the statute which again harps on the minor child the condition life of the minor child and again i can point to to you through the justices any particular case that says to me the first i think is judge riley was getting at the continuation continuum that the delta penna child is a minor child whose dependency was created adult dependent children when they're not living with the parent because a lot of times it's more difficult to walk to care for an adult dependent child thing you're relying on what he says here is fact this has been on a day to day basis this crosses a probate judges desk bench on a daily basis but if i may just related to that also emancipation becoming an age eighteen mancipation has to have some significance and that's part of what judge and i'm not saying this court is i'm what judge wright said i'm just saying it has some bearing on and where we get to where we're at that emancipation has significance as he says you get to break the plate and tell your kid she go outside now you're saying you've thrown him out of the house or he's left on his own free will now all of a sudden he's back in time your emancipation doesn't make a difference it makes a difference in in the divorce context when you're talking about child support and there are cases one of the cases that they are referred to is relied upon was strong versus strong which is a divorce case you know the probate it does define dependent does and it says it means a person who is unable to maintain himself and is likely to become a public ch what that he is dependent because that was in their position or it was a judgment on the effect in effect of judgment but what i'm saying is assuming all that then you can't make heads or tails of the  later language in the probate act provision that talks about giving granting a an award of nine months to support a child in a manner suited to the condition in the life of a minor child couple time courts have said we will award awards for child support of we will extend that obligation is when the child now to sable was disabled during his minority champagne case says that's what he's trying case was there are other cases in the court can make whatever it wants of this where a child has been emancipated and then incur significant so there is a consistency in the inference the judge riley talked about in his book art is there expressed language just sort of said no but there is some yes i'll just say awkwardness in the language on that the pro wonder if there who should take the hit should be is should the father of the state take the hit or should the government take and i'm just wondering if that enters into it somewhere because it's it's the is the the other factor in these cases is that it's someone who is likely to become a church and so when there's money in the state and this person father this child is there some policy out there that he should make a contribution or stationing for the government yes for them and i just you know i'm not i understand the history of this i would only say that this isn't in a vacuum and it's not an endless pot of money that's involved so to the extent that child's award is awarded it has an impact to the extent there is not enough money in the state has an and that they come back and say you're talking about if it was one point some point something you know one point something million dollars and you know if there if there is a child start then that the financial status of everybody is presented to pay the price for helping to maintain the liquid the it's the stability of the public coffers and it's it's not painless it's all i'm saying so  it does affect the spouse to the extent it's paid in this case it affects the other surviving children abro most care so they are the ones that are paying the price that's all i can tell the court i mean it's not it's not some baseless have northern trust write a check kind of ethically it does make a difference to the offspring who survive and does make a difference to this house in financial  terms of the insurance issue i don't want to repeat what the questions were that that both the justices came up with the first go around but that's exactly the way we have phrased it and you know our schwab is the case oh because of the i think it's important that should be given to that specific term minor child or minor children if the the whole word consent judgment that's before the court from the ninety three maryland divorce is replete with these references to minors it does refer by the way child and child or children in one particular part when he's talking about child support but other than that it talks about minor child minor child minor children says that has significance is that is the language in this case slightly different each wash schweitzer sorry absolutely is a little bit more clear but as we said in our brief if you reach washed in connection with later cases perkins where they come up with some language that is nowhere near what we're confronted with today but they say if they're if they hadn't if the parties hasn't tended to have some restriction on the time period in which this obligation to apply they could have like us as inst schwantz added some language that says minor children and i think that was emphasized in the in the persons opinion here's what could have taken place if they wanted here's what could have been included had they wanted to be specific referring to joie and the exact language about it to say minor child instead of just the way you phrased it in  it would have made a difference it would have indicated the tenth and i don't see that they effectively get around that and to the courts other question related to seller it's to me that's that's an even stronger case for us because in you  horses of a phrase of paragraph in the upper portion you talking about children being irrevocable beneficiaries in the latter part when you're talking about certain medical one type expenses you're talking to minor children of course there's a difference just in that hole just in that single paragraph you're saying there is there must be a different reason why you refer to children in the upper and minor children in the lower we're not going to in impose any kind of it's only during the minority requirement in the upper part having to do with the insurance that's our case basically i mean that they're saying we are we are the same as sellers we're saying no you're not you're the exact opposite of sellers the use of the word children in cellars is what won the day for that here in our case it's all of the places minor children the court had asked a question about well how does that fly with the college education expenses all i can say that's the only instance where you could even say that that it all is in congress with minor children as minor children that matter what you say it's it bad rafting on the attorney's part and you can have children who are minorities during their college years where that would plausibly have some application so i i don't think the like with the court and it still remains address and here the following reason that in the earlier part where they're talking about a visitation is for the mind of trick minor children who will be minor children live with none of that would make any sense if you meant of course it applies after their majority it has to apply during the period a minority has a very specific as to those particular items it has a very specific you can't say the minor in a majority of person of the age of majority shall live with his mother that makes no sense you can say that the child support obligations father applies once he reaches majority it has a very specific meaning in those particular instance judge and he can have the same specific meaning as to college expenses is just more of a sliver i would submit or it can be done consistently and in terms of whether this was available through say that then the shares procured in in one thousand ninety eight year earlier was available to him through his employment that doesn't make sense and there is no case i neither side as to what what difference does it make  in terms of who if they are a minor amount of the premium payments are made by the by the corporation doctor must fair as corporation as opposed to an individual or some other party i would just submit that in the scheme security childhood disability benefits is a dependent for the purpose of the dependent child award in addition there was some discussion with counsel about emancipation and what constitutes back i believe that those cases cited by the administrator and that discussion is relevant to what we have going on today and a similar discussion occurred in that that in her case and define two children from the second marriage as opposed to three children one being from the first marriage as for the issue of  control and enforce his obligations to obtain the life insurance policy again we're dealing with an equitable situation here he was contractually obligated by the force of the creature by for those benefits