going to argue the second issue i raised i think the court might tend to side with the respondent because the response statute was amended  by reason of that amendment that word that has no longer appears in the state but i i am going to strenuously maintain that the hearing opening statements and trial proceedings made some comments that i think are very worthy and no noteworthy on he'll and the court begins by pointing out that this is that it is appropriate to note because the lawyers well no but the parties may not know the law in this area in other that this is not a best interest they decisions data big trial care decisions concerning the minor the court then immediately says the only question is is mrs miller willing and able to make and carry out that they today a finding that the case should be dismissed i would point out that the statute as  then rate tatyana t noted has changed since the supreme court case of in great r l s the statute now reads that the court la unless the parent or parents voluntarily relinquish physical custody of the minor i would suggest to the court that when a child lives in one home or a decade that it's fair to say that the parent has voluntarily relinquished custody of the child to the two  would suggest to the court that this has been demonstrated by the record in this case and there is no getting around it the parent placed the minor with mr  mrs helm when she was in kindergarten when she was in rolled in the decatur school districts my clients carried her back and forth from their home to  my clients took care of her they cloned der they fetter they took her to her parent teacher conferences they took her to the doctor they the the plaintiff pointed out and and the respondent mother pointed out that in the last four years prior to the she had been really married or married for the first time i'm not quite sure what the rule what the facts are but she was placed with the grandparents when she  when the mother got married and the mother visited her a grand total of either two times or three times in four years this is a continuation of the placement of this child the minor herself testified that she had this to term mom two or three times the mother's new husband testify that both ways on both sides of that issue it was your burden there there is evidence on both sides of that surely there's some testimony by the mother that she lived with to check with her folks but that isn't the that's the that's against the met a festive weight of the evidence the courts who are finding that there was evidence both ways ignores the fact that the minor herself testified that she lived with her grandparents the mother testified she lived with her grandparents the mother did testify that she got pregnant one time and she came and stayed there during her confinement when the child was born she left and she left the child behind all that argument seems pretty powerful to me well she was here she was right here he was almost seems like in looking at this record that the trout were took into consideration his mind was seventeen and maybe parties ought to be able to work this out but obviously they were in court because they could work it out and your honor what is the significance of the guardianship at this weight with the my being seventeen years old this is something the bin not from the record the minor has been in voluntarily placed with her maternal grandmother and she has run away and she doesn't want to be there and their mother took her home last week and i'd say the mother doesn't even have the child no the mother the child lives in goes to school at mount zion school district and that school district is where she's going to graduate hopefully cindy dallas her maternal grandmother who also lives there arguments regarding the facts and how they played out in this case i it's my understanding that the evidence is in conflict so much today we the trial court had the opportunity to evaluate the that were were mentioned by counsel and the court had a question about why the trial court found that the evidence was in conflict the evidence wasn't conflict there was evidence on the side that the child lived with the grandparents for her whole life there was also evidence i think for four or five years she lived with the mother then she moved with the mother in with the grandparents so then they lived there for five more years and then the mother got married moved out and was writing her home wally evidence pretty much right right she lived with the grandparents and the mother visited her took her to medical appointments held her medical card and i would i would argue that the medical card and those medical decisions were to go to that day to day willing and able to sta well the courts and tatyana t the courts in illinois have found that there has to be either an in court oral statement for there to be voluntary relinquish well they can they can stuff and what they can if they go to court and get it approved but i believe that disappear your rights doctrine what the legislative intent was was that it's it's harder than just saying in an hour of court cont in our k j and that there has to be that paper for voluntary relinquishment there has to be either a document saying i am giving permission for the grandparents to be guardian of my child or there has to be some kind of in court statements the only case i found and that actually held that there was a voluntary belief which meant what is in our j b that was in two thousand and eleven and the fourth district found plan where the power had come in and stated i get my consent to this guardianship and he done that on the record in a previous proceeding and so he came back after that and at that point it was the best interest because the court had standing because he had given that affirmation in court that that i would say that's a big distinguishing factor i would i would agree but i do think that in this case you know the grandparents have the child for salman almost seventeen years before ever filing a guardianship so they took care of her  and so i think i think it goes back to the formal written consent and the surrender there is no formal written consent or there is no surrender of the parental rights and in an adoption proceeding for example the there was no voluntary and there was there was no consent under these facts and things happened out of court the grandparents helped take care of the child and also as counsel as counsel stated the maternal grandmother also helped take care of the mother made the decision that it was in the best interests of the child to have the grandparents help or schoolwork and so that's that's what she decided to do and my biggest my biggest reason for believing that the trial court should be affirmed in this case beyond the fact that she was the one who evaluated all parties is that you know today we've got a lot of different types of families we've got a lie about grandparents settling in to help working parents and the mother in this case testified that for i think eight or nine years she was working full time so that's why she had the grandparents keep the child out help the child with homework things like that and she would come home she lived with a child and a home until she lost it and then she was working and live with the child with grandparents in a home in their home and so if if the the jurisdictional question if if that standard becomes softened then it of constructive guardianship the the relationships between the parents grandparents and the grandchildren i believe it would be chilled because you wouldn't be able to trust your parents you could say oh you wash your well you know only certain hours only certain times and not  envelop that relationship with the child because you're worried that there is some kind of out of court constructive guardianship and it is my belief that that was the legislative intent by putting this threshold in here which the threshold been there since before the fitness part of the statute was revealed repealed in two thousand and eleven so it's my belief that that is why the legislature put that in there is to give the secure rights of the child to the parents and to make it more difficult you can't just have this construct of guardianship you have to have a written or verbal affirmation to the court so that the court knows that this is your decision about your child i believe that covers my arguments and and just kind of concluding on if if it were to get the best interest council mention that it was the recommendation of the guardian ad litem if the threshold question was asked that the guardianship be granted that might be in the centrist but understood it from my client was that the child ran away should you know counsel said she ran away from her maternal grandmother will she ran away away from her paternal grandparents as well as in the record she went away from school and was and was running around and she's seventeen years old and that i think the evaluation of her demeanor by the trial court i think was very important in determining what her you know what her preferences were what her reasons were for her prefer in the home would i would state that the law in the area is clear the facts as they are supported are clubbers decision the trial court properly found that the petitioners lack jurisdiction to become guardian jurisdiction it's finding that it did not have jurisdiction maybe critical to focus the court head at the beginning of the hearing when it when it made its opening comments after  without and the finding that the child was with her mother is contrary to the evidence and so i wrote i believe that the court should  reverse the trial judge and the case for the proceedings consistent with the idea that the court does have