it please the court as i said my name is andrew i care i represent nicholas cancer the apple want to hear your honour's the name of the child at issue in this dispute is william gan that's his father right there nicholas ganster in the first row in the dark suit his father's name is william ganser it is not coincidental that his father's name is the same name as the child at issue in dispute here it is not coincidentally your honour's that on the birth certificate of the child before the parties were even married that the name of the gansler the last name a scam is not coincidental your honour's that prior to the even marriage of the parties in the church the parties swore before god that at the child's baptism when they were each holding the child that nicholas cancer was the father of this child these parties have a front and swore before the state of illinois the state of wisconsin and equally if not more important before god that this man is the father of william ganser that the it's it's not reality let's let's get to the issues ok all right what are asking this case law provides you what we claim is four bases for finding nicholas gansler to be the parent of the of this child the father of this child first this court and i put it last in my brief but it's not a throwaway argument is sometimes last arguments are is the doctrine of parents patri i which is in a set a jurisdictional underpinning of the entire illinois marriage and dissolution of marriage act under the doctrine of parents this court and any court can act in this emergency situation or exceptional circumstances arise to protect the welfare of a child all the children that are in this court system are words of the court and this court has the trial court this court has the inherent authority to protect this child not just from the current time but potential harm and the potential emotional psychological physical harm to these children william and henry williams brother and nicholas nicholas is child who is not in dispute is self evidently at these circumstances this is an exceptional circumstance an extraordinary circumstance and this is the death of a relationship whether we're going to revive it reza rocked it better acted preserve it or kill it and that to me or i i cannot can think of no more extraordinary circumstance for dieppe plenary power of this court to be exercised under these circumstances and skew question let's just say that we agreed with you and gave you jack i'm not asking for the trial court to return this to the try this court to return to the trial court for adoption i'm asking this court to go to find that my client under a variety of equitable principles has standing sufficient to seek not to get but to seek custody or visitation with his child that's all i'm asking for and that i understand that the superior rights doctrine you may ask me is implicated in matt but that is it something that would acquit reaches after the custody dispute or visitation dispute becomes right well i would find it difficult that the appellate court would consider consider thing on its own this can see the child that would be for the trial court to determine on the best interest standard which is what the ever rock over whelming issue is before the courts on short when children are concerned the court can return this case to the trial court if you want for hearing on standing because there was never a hearing on standing there was it was done on the briefs and affidavits but we believe that this court had it under its appellate power has the authority to reverse  of equitable stop to a prevent nikki from asserting a position that was that she should be stopped from poseur asserting id in this case that my client does not have standing is not the father of the child all the elements of the classic elements of equitable stoppel have been a met in this case there was a intentional state a statement that was not true upon which my client relied to his detriment a specific statement charge and i that graduate asked is that you are the father of this child that was not a true statement when she made it as you can see when she filed the petition she claimed she wasn't the father that status of fatherhood as anybody who is a parent a father a mother it's not something that's transitory that's immutable you're the father it's not dependent on whether you remain married or not and every single conceivable aspect of their rights that was the representation he made and he relied on it judge by investing not just his money but his heart and soul as a parent from the mother literally the second this child was born to it was taken away from him by the mother to quote incentivize him and quote in the context of this divorce and that was the fraudulent statement upon which he relied to his detriment and for which there is injury  was you are the father you are the dad repeatedly that is akin mutable concept that is not something subject to the whim of a party of a person to change if you die you're the father of the child if the child dies you're the father of the child it doesn't change when you file for divorce and that your honour's was the representation she made to him and that representation he relied on counsel i'm sorry but i mean this relationship was happy nicholas knew that he had not adopted the child and that he was not the child's biological father right he could never be a biological father needed or was she the biological mother and he but he also knew that he had not adopted correct your honor so how is that detrimental reliance on what she was saying when he knew he's a lawyer and he knew the two things that would have created by the biological or adopted by the hood didn't exist the representation that she he was a father that he was a father of this child was not a conditional representation that she made as long as you file the adoption papers the representation was you right the father it was a comma until you file the adoption papers or finish that ministerial step and for failure so the representation was unequivocal inviolate non conditional you were the father if she had told him i'll consider you the father during the marriage but if we get divorced yet and you haven't filed briefs we haven't taken that ministerial step of literally just filing some papers you will be the father then he couldn't relied on it but that's not what she said that's not what every single word and action ind she did from them before the child was born to the database she filed and even after what he was served with the petition saying he wasn't a father after they left a parent teacher conference where he's listed as the father of this child every single word ind well i would say that if you are the father of a child in the prem in that there can be but not in this case he was it for all intents and purposes the father not the legal father not the practical f father you can be friend you can be a stepdad you can be a a third party who comes in and helps out every once in a while and call me pop but he was the father and under illinois law under other jurisdictions law the court recognizes this parent this lifeforce this relationship as the father not and whether it's practically was practically the father there's no other word in the english language to describe his relationship with this between a child and a natural or adoptive parent why should we expand that definition to the guy who is living with the mother first of all you are you're right the and i'm glad you asked the parent is not defined  illinois marriage and dissolution of marriage act and as counsel aptly points out in their brief opposing counsel it should be given its normal and customary meaning in a statute where it's not defined and if there is no other natural income if a million people looked at their relationship they would say parent father child so give it to use their language make it the natural ordinary meaning and to the extent of expanding it why are you expanding your church well first of all you're using appropriate inexistent legal theories to make to allow this person and this child who has nobody here speaking for them to have a father and if i don't think you can limit it to this case you can limit the facts to this case as many of the cases around the court country does because they are unique to kick this state has been in existence since eighteen eighteen that's almost two hundred years it's the first time this cases of this nature has come up and it may be the last time but the public policy the state mandates that you too i believe unequivocally to do to not do that in this case is directly contrary to public policy and i don't think this court will do that particularly on a particular where there is not one and one fact one fa her brief and i dare i defy anyone to point out why he shouldn't be the father other then she can assert that there's not why so why would you not do something that is totally consistent with the best interest of the children consistent with every policy and state of illinois for no particular reason other than you can just makes no sense and there's a child here we keep talking the abstract you have all these people there's a three year old and his brother henry his brother henry who every day visits with nicholas and really in this behind a glass cage looking at him seeing him but can't go with him and if you don't think that when william and henry get older and talk who are you going with and if you don't think that there's to going the emotional harm to those two children what william says who was that they used to be your dad whose dad was william ganser that's your grandfather if you don't think you're just what you're destroying it's a deep with the conduct of the mother here is senseless it's not even in the old best interest to guarantee emotional harm to our children he's sending support chester turned away the public we have our entire nation judge not nicholas his standing correct and the effect of back is if you affirm the trial court's decision you have rendered william the father lists you have destroyed the relation of terminated by judicial that which she has begun determination of a parent child relationship in the normal ordinary course and i don't mean to say it's not a guilt trip but that's going to be the net result of a judge and i asked each of your honor's when you reflect on this to what end to what end because i don't know the end it was to incentivize a divorce is that appropriate to terminate a parent child relationship i think one not extend to a relationship and racing a relationship between her partner and her child which she voluntarily create we created and actively foster simply because after the party separation she regretted having done so this child needs somebody to speak for that child you cannot allow this woman to a race that relationship for no reason when every policy the state mandates otherwise you have the tools available to you equitable stop it all the zero in case you can revisit which defined concept of every case that touches on this issue is that the court to tax the best interest of the child and in this case judge there is no other decision other than to allow him to seek custody or visitation of this child that  if you're a done deal with this repeat of the entire home study had and don he had been approved as a stepparent the petition all the documents were ready they moved from wisconsin to illinois he was raising three young children and he didn't take that last ministerial stack that last just if there was no doubt a discretionary issue involved and one that merrill hypertechnical hands were that were going to take away a parent child relationship a father from his child was raised every minute of every day for the time they were together he was there wasn't even a case of him being out of town or what drunk or sexual abuse he was the great father you know only letters and documents so yes he didn't that and here we can read spat as well he's cried in my office dozens of times about that judge but we're going to let that stand in the way when we have substantial compliance under contract cases that you can have a breach of contract if your or not when you don't deliver all the widgets and the cases cited we have situations where the lot bends a little changes the definition allow somebody to do something to do right to do equity this court can what's done is done he did every single thing except that last minister will step if his car had broken down on the way up to wisconsin and she filed for divorce in the interim there's no difference he just didn't do that last step and you know why he didn't do that last step judge and equity is to assert that you have to have clean hands he relied on her that that relation that inviolate not mutable father child relationship would survive the divorce and would survive his failure to take that ministerial staff if that had been not been the representation he would have that wouldn't happen so you can't rely on an equitable maxim in that regard when you have told somebody something that subsequently is is not true your cl failure to take that ministerial step when he believed he never had to take it i would because that's the people who are hurting here because you dickless is a bit is an adult ok maybe he's hurting very badly but william and henry a three and two one point nicky actually said to nick get with it she did say that absolutely judge and he still didn't do it he was you're right but again that was it did she didn't say do that or else you know if we file for divorce you won't be the parent she said you are the father you are the father you were the father she didn't condition it wasn't a comma with a subset condition subsequent to it and  i just feel your honor that we have a situation here where you have three or four paths that you can take the one path which is the one that most courts take on the standing is will destroy your relationship will be contrary to public policy the state of illinois you have three or four other paths that other courts have taken that your honour's have taken that the law of illinois provides you to do something that the overwhelming public policy of best interest of the child mandates you do to do otherwise would be the one the few decisions of this court that would be a decision that would be not consistent with the best interests not of just of william but of henry and your honors there are no  cases illinois on this situation this is a unique situation and if it opens the floodgates if you're right and they're going to say it's going to open the floodgates if it opens the floodgates and more cases or even a few cases where a loving supporting caring person who is a husband of a wife and has been a father and a parent to a child is willing to give his heart his soul his rights for the child then let the floodgates open illinois like the united states needs more fathers to be invested in their children and care about them like you like nicholas thank a pleasure or a morning in preparing for this argument i realized i could make my entire argument in five lines but i think the court might expect more i know my client does mr ganser had but one option and that was adoption and he never exercised it mr eichner my seemed opposing counsel says again and does again what he's been doing throughout the entire case and i said it might brief and i say again enough is enough he starts the argument he turns to his lap and points to a gentleman said he is the father i don't care how many times he says it it doesn't make it true there's a difference between rhetoric and reality this matter comes before you because a lawyer mr ganser and his lawyer stripe were filed two pleadings verified certified under one thirty seven in which they say nicholas nicholas is the father of william it is not normally how it is done you normally say that as a result of the midsummer two parties but one to that there are two children born to the parties that a child was adopted and so want to show for it doesn't say that he just says i am the father nicholas it was brief and i mentioned this before and today takes the position he's some kind of victim if he's a victim at all he's a victim of his own inaction he's a victim of a spell you're to do something need i believe you nailed it in all those months that he was married and the adoption could take place he didn't do it and he sad and his grief it page eleven life and parenthood got in the way trivialize the entire adoption act to some administrative procedure is wrong and i buy you this my preferred i don't want to keep argument is what i said in my brief but i stand i was mr eichner say to you don't punish the children how are you punishing the children let's decide get let's do what every court in america does let's talk about the best interest i would love to talk about the best interest when it's appropriate the issue is standing you can't put the cart before the horse they said it makes for bad law and worse transportation you cannot do what they're asking you to do with all due respect because what they're asking you to do makes no sense and to put it on you say don't punish the child every human whether you have your own children not feels for children we all want the best for children they're our future but this isn't how you go about it and if there's anyone to blame it is not mickey it is not judge katz it's not recall mirabelli it's william again sooner he's the one who did not follow through the continued attempt to flame someone else there is an action with all the respect has to stop here and it has to stop now the court system was not created to protect people from themselves mr ganser and only mr cancer is the one to blame and as i listen to the argument about how this is strawberry they're not unique they're not extraordinary he talks about he mentioned today something that i've never heard about how this was a contract if you just don't get all the widgets and i thought to myself he never pled there was a contract he never played it in his brief sometimes there's a thing you know i called a contract to marry if you promise to marry me and you don't marry me i'm going to sue you it's called the illinois breach of promise to marry act there's a statute right on point well it's to stay within the law there's a statute the reason of such statute you promised to let me adopt a child and then you did which would be maybe in the contract well so for counsel just to keep pardon the expression spit balling as he gets up here and throwing up every think you possibly think about that's not even in his brief i find offensive and insulting phrases like life got in the way again going back to life just doesn't get in the way i don't think there's anything more important than your child complete the  technicality mickey armed with nothing more than a hyper technicalities of the law if we are not a people of laws if we are not a state of was we are a state of chaos i can appreciate trying to be creative on behalf of your client but i do not believe in filing petitions and language in arguments that are nothing less than sanctionable the only true indisputable facts in this case you are not the biological father mr cancer you did not adopt a ganser you have no standing and just because you say it doesn't make it sole again reality versus bush's hollywood a long long time ago  galaxy far far away was the beginning of a series of movies and in one scene between good and evil darth vader says to look i am your father and everybody who nobody did a d n a past nobody said  adopt him nobody questioned darth vader why because it's hollywood it's not reality but in illinois when you're talking about reality you have to adopt a child or be the biological father and you need to say that  occasions specifically say represent a guy named bob graham if you sold you a car and he showed just a smith i have this beautiful blue chevy for you well but it's a white chevy can you sue him no because no reasonable person would rely upon the color of the car but i'm telling you if you could look at the counter he knew he wasn't the father he knew he had to do the adoption he wrote a series of e mails i'm going to get to the adoption nikki said you got to do the adoption i don't care if she stands on the top of the john hancock building in screams out you were the father that doesn't make him the father the only way he becomes  father is by operation of law nicky has no right to confront fatherhood upon him unless she agrees to an adoption but it's accrued who's making him the father if he is the biological father it's the law that makes him the father and he doesn't have that power and as i said in my brief one of the problems when we get to the issue of the law because i think justice kirby said let's get some said let's get to the case law illinois doesn't represent aquittal parents the roberts case is right on point nothing has changed of operates case so to the extent that he wants to argue go along he has no law he said well this is a case of first impression it's a case of first impression because they made it that way because he never did anything to complete the adoption it's almost missed the fine but he comes before the court and says this in this case and he argues in getting to your answer no matter what she sat as this is a university of virginia law school graduate i'm not holding to a higher standard because he's a lawyer but when we talk about the reasonable man stand and reasonable reliance it's a factor to be consider yuki i was reading prepared today and indeed attachments is that home study evaluation that they referred to and i noticed unfortunately for the first time but it's in the record nicholas is e and did an adoption and he was talking about how he's familiar with the adoption process because he's the godfather to an adopted child if you're the godfather to adopt a child then you know we have to adopt him he writes in the answer you think i know i just have to fill out the petition chaos you went through the entire illinois adoption nec useless it's why do we have it there's a statutory scheme for these things to operate within the law these things need processes to adopt a child to get married to have a war license you don't i don't know for a fact but i'm going to presume that each one of you does it says maybe a homeowner in the county of cook if you buy a house you know you have to pay real estate taxes if you don't pay your taxes they're going to be sold to the scavenger sale if you don't redeem your taxes you're going to lose your house and when someone comes to you knocks on the door says time to move out we bought your house with hack sale and you say but wait a minute this is just a car couse it's from eating fifties the oldest house in chicago it's the most unique house in chicago it's been in my family for six generations we need the park house after each generation what can you do for the man he didn't pay his taxes adoption agency you knew you had to tough it mickey sad nicky never said don't adopt a child od it that whole adoption things overweighted don't worry by the nicolas you don't have to adopt anybody she's not a lawyer she said could you please do this a s a p and he writes an email ok i'm going to i'm good great i'm going to get on this but he never does and he creates the problem and he now says for all of you solve this for me but you see we don't live in nicholas's world if you want to so problem you create chaos for everybody else i said in my brief when did he at woodley adopt a child i wrote that when they wrote the reply that they got me they'd actually in in a point to se appellate court and say they stand for the proposition illinois has long recognized after all adoption for the purpose of inheritance those are all contract based cases and then we go to the we go to the stately case in case i actually like the brief i was in law school from mr home fridge all of these cases are against them so what they can fight you to do is to adopt no pun intended the theory of aquittal parent or to adopt the theory of case knowing that it was between a same sex couple but they used the word parent council today cited from that case yet in this reply brief he said he was distinguishing the c b l case but today he likes it so much for which it is but if you look at the case even judge katz found it to be mostly dispositive there is no legal standing if you're not a parent and that's what it all comes down to i think you know it's not my place to to make light of this i'm not trying to make light of the predicament that mr ganser finds himself in today but it's hard when he doesn't have any facts there are no indisputable facts but to his i've told you and when he tells you that she made these statements that for example the child's first words were dada no mom found if they did say no it's bob bob really what's the difference what the town's first then doesn't go to standing he wants you to jump over the issue of standing forget about standing forget about will be only case law forget about the statute and we just talk about your heart and my heart don't we want to help the child this is nothing short of inspired speculation to say that the child i mean really that the child sits behind a glass cage and watches his brother coming go where does this come from that he sat in my office and cried i don't doubt that he cried and he should cry and he should be kicking himself in the pot every day and i believe in equity but this isn't an equitable issue today this is whether or not you have standing if it's a to noble issue then you have to decide it on the long and if you want to help mr ganns or send them to the legislature he did not so before i sit down i ask you once again maybe you'll ask him two questions if completing is about an adoption is trivial or a ministerial act or a hyper technicality well then why did you complete the adoption for henry if you could find time to complete the adoption of henry during the same time period well then why didn't you complete the adoption for william maybe today when my posting council steps back up you might answer those questions but it all points back to the same thing it is mr gansler who didn't do this and what he has done now in attempt really to overwhelm literally put me in truly meet my client in submission is to spend thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars of legal fees to establish something he could have done very simply but he chose or your honour's we're not talking about the sale of a car or the sale of a house or star wars this is the most grave important decision that i've ever been involved in and thirty years of my thirty two years of practicing law it's a decision that implicates the central public policy of the state of illinois and you've heard an argument for twenty minutes by opposing counsel right respect but could not tell you one factual reason one reason i'm under this entire world other than the fact that my client did not complete the ministerial step why she should not be the father of this child by right he is not to buy he should not be considered  is the parent of this child because there is no reason the question why should we change the law for one and you're not changing the law for one individual judge i disagree with you i understand that judge any time the equitable stopper which finds its genesis in fifteenth century england you're using the equitable adoption which is a concept that is an illinois law and yes i'm asking you to revisit my client is the equitable parent doctrine which would under the american law institute and other jurisdictions that have adopted this which case would fall squarely within it i'm not asking you to change the law i'm asking you to use tools available to you in current law to reach a result that is the only right result in this case this isn't the sale of a car this is the mr mirabelle he said the most important thing is a child the most important thing in this case is those two children it's not nicholas and it's nicholas is not the nicholas is a victim but he's not the victim in this the true victims of this of this outrage of this conduct of the two children and they're the ones that have nobody arguing for them and to rely on each of your honor's and the circuit court and the state is illinois to protect their interests and i'm asking you to do that in this case you have the tools available to you other states have done it in numerable your honour's have done it in swearing and roberts doesn't foreclose it simmons doesn't foreclose it equitable stop all the a j vs randy case in wisconsin apply an equitable stop which is a common law principle which is not something that is unique or stiffer in any state it has the same elements in that case the doctrine of equitable stoppel is stopped the natural father from attempting to rebut the presumption that a child born during the marriage but that of that husband whose child had been born during the marriage what was the biological father to rebuff the presumption that he was not the father and the essence conferring standing on a non biological father in that case you can do it in this case because nobody really talks about what is standing we talk about standing as the right to sue that's like a synonym but is the definition of standing the definition of standing is a person who has a direct immediate interest in litigation that is neither remote or inconsequential that's the definition of standing and under any definite under that definition under any stretch of the imagination nicholas cancer has a direct and immediate interest in the subject of this litigation is a party to it and he has an interest in how his child henry and his child william are raised who their custody who their visitation is parent's rights to make those decisions it certainly could impinge on it consistent with public policy to give the child parent father a opportunity to seek to visit where they have custody with the child the lot is  replete with situations where the court defacto situations are recognized illinois law recognize a louse for the terminations of maintenance when there is a de facto husband wife relationship not married but a defacto husband  life relationship where is that in the statute necessarily where was that in the common law if we can do a de facto relationship to terminate maintenance can we find him an act would a bill parents allow these two children to have complete lives with fathers if they have three children two with fathers and the middle one without a father now i don't have to be a psychologist a six zero four b up to fifteen expert to make the determination if that is not and i did not cite the m b case they're referring to i was referring to a case out of state and i wasn't referring to this as they had a contract i was only pointing out that in the law sometimes the exact or balinese need not be followed to reach a result and cite those in my brief where people are married even though the technicalities of the marriage are not observed in those are cited in my reply brief and the state has an interest here which outweighs her interest and nobody's talked about this in parenting this child and this is from a case d c vs m j be it's a two thousand case from new jersey seven forty eight a second five thirty nine we have addressed here is a specific set of circumstances involving the volitional choice of a legal parent to seat a measure of parental authority to a third party to allow that party to function as a parent in the day to day life of the child and to foster the forging of a parental bond between the third party and the child in circumstances the legal parent has created a family with the third partner the child and has invited to third party into the otherwise inviolable realm of family privacy by virtue of her own actions the legal parent's expectation of autonomous privacy another parent the legal parents options are constrained it is the child's best interest that is preeminent as it would be if two legal parents were in a conflict over custody and visitation and that involves a same sex relationship to head the relationship  not husband wife and not somebody would raise the child from the minute they were born and there is not one case that presents a better fact patter a more compelling case then this case it any case in any jurisdiction in illinois  this we're in case for the it for this court to recognize that mr nicholas should be allowed the right to standing because he has a substantial interest in the subject matter of this litigation to attempt to seek custody or visitation or see his chip trial and this implicates henry as well because it does again it does not take a six zero four p expert he hears a parent that when he goes to the door to pick up henry and he can't pick up william and william knows that henry's gone and when henry comes back and when they're seven or eight years old that's going to happen and i use the analogy behind a classic raul it's like at the zoo you can see him but you can't hear your talk to him and you can't touch him and you can't take him and if that is not devastating to a child devastating to the child's brother the causing the potential of emotional harm to the child and something this court should not allow ha absent compelling circumstances and i don't know what is judge this is the right thing to do saint paul said that this letter of the law kills the spirit of the law gives life gives rise to this relationship with the spirit of a lot as a vince in the public policy of this state let william have a father and let henry have a brother whether the same father is fair thank you very much