kimberly is a woman now the prime of her life but that was the subject of an adoption many number of years ago as this court is well aware back and she was more like nine hundred sixty eight her mother mar jurisdiction to republican action because barbara knew where he was located she knew he was in the military at the time there are issues with that that were never like that and we're now be able to bring that up now i of state or some type of issue like that i agree with that i further agree that there is no tolling of the statue of limitations for discovery i agree there also but i don't agree with is that the court never analyzed our never position is that it wasn't done in the right place they knew it was in the military he wasn't even aware they published the newspaper but he used but wouldn't you have to offer other evidence that he was in the military other evidence has told the mother that you knew where case is directly on point first specific issue i understand counsel is trying to differentiate the way trying to differentiate the same well there's a there was a there's a bigger fraud more parties were working in concert against the it definitely did he didn't bring it into your fashion i totally agree with that but what the court found was that it was a void order and but the fact remains we should have a no have that hearing on the motion reopen what is there what is not there other words opening the we're not saying to the court must then for the adoption or only asking importers this court to send it back with directions that are set to say what should happen a limited hearing as to whether or not the jurisdiction was appropriate or not that's it it's a very limited case it's a very limited sense relief that we're seeking and and fall down further and i apologise for getting a little bit hypothetical i would say i would say in that case yes if the if there is if there is a basis to doing so for example in this case alleging met wait a minute we should be able to publication he really knew where my dad was or he was in of the father that you were describing could come back in a year and a day and be without any form of relief i don't know specific legislative history or but if you know that they think the legislature would believe that this court would be and then following up on what justice holder white was asked me about avoid order can be attacked by the only based on the record before the court so whether or not there's a hearing you know you handle this  that we could we could have that analysis stuff and if we were able to look at that issue in the court but then what facts wait a minute this wasn't done correctly we actually have a hearing on that was in the military that was able to be found this case requires the appellate to get over three hurdles in order to find that the statute of limitations does not apply the first hurdle would be that there must be good cause to open the file the second hurdle is that there must be some factual basis alleging fraud that is inside the record respectfully contend that that soldier by very well have a claim if in fact there was an allegation of fraud concerning his personal interest as well as there is no fraud within the that's the allegation of far but he's missing the tour of there has to be an underlying basis in their tests to all of the file system this one's identity because it's important for an adopted child to eventually get to know the biological father the biological father has passed her mother has passed these are potential witnesses that will never testify donald else than the adoptive father never entered his appearance he didn't file an affidavit and his privacy concerns are at issue too so there's no cars to open it and there's absolutely no basis there's no factual basis of a fraud inside or outside this case should never have gotten this far i believe justice schmidt entered an appropriate order and these issues did there were extensive allegations of fraud inside the rudder and that case was properly ruled upon and that natural father was able to proceed but he was was directed at the persons or session of the father that mother wanted to hide it from him and so for that reason there was clearly a factual basis to set aside that ju same time that's helpful simply because we know now that even as this court would allow it to proceed on motion to reopen we know that there is no factual basis for fraud we know that there's nothing this on the record going to the issue of fron but what additional point i guess on the issue of whether there's any possibility that the affidavit of chemical campbell could be construed to constitute some basis and in fraud it's interesting that counsel argues that nor is there any factual basis to find motivation to hide the whereabouts but when you look at the affidavit it's relied upon state of mind of a least two different people four years  when the petitioner here was five years old at the time for adoption so it's it's a it's a stretch to say the least and this  court and if this case would allow this one to open up there be a whole lot of others opened up as well so if you've got some extra time i just want to ask you to come up with an give me an example of where fraud would be apparent in a rapper oh perhaps there could be an affidavit placed on file at some point during the it could be in the documents in the court file perhaps someone would we believe testify that would lead to a reasonable conclusion that there was to see it would have to be based upon  concealing it relevant fact could be apparent in the record it may have slipped by the judge but we're talking about and i just ask you if this is correct when we're talking about absolutely all that russian that i don't want him on religious just for counsel and off and intentional omission exactly like an intentional admission of a person being in the military where it's supposed to say one way or the other i'd say that was a perfect example of how the court should then later conduct hearings on that basis and report it will not open the floodgates my goodness this will not open the floodgates i cannot imagine very many cases have a similar set of facts it's not a floodgate it the state what his position is and you're on very quickly at the end there isn't a hypothetical the council to come up with where would be apparent in the record my goodness that's arguing the point just kind of oh heck with it there's fraud in this file