appeal this is a consolidated appeal from two mercer county cases in case thirteen c f five mr jasper was nicked it after a bench trial two counts of criminal sexual assault and one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse sexual assaulting his thirteen c f i and the consecutive six years for one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and he's thirteen c f sixty four in meetings where arguments in this appeal and in our brief the first is that the evidence presented at trial and he's thirteen c s i i me go to the states proposition that mr jasper was in a position of trust authority or supervision in relationship to the victims u w the sec it is that mr jasper should conviction under quote a similar statute of the state or any other state for an offense involving criminal sexual assault that is of c actually equivalent to or more serious than the offense he was charged with in that information degree criminal sexual abuse for the mere touching of the sexual organ regardless of intrusion that's not the case in illinois and this ration is an element of criminal sexual assault in illinois therefore in order for m that's the trial court improperly impose a class x felony sentence and defendant's conviction of criminal sexual assault and if your honour's do not have any questions for me we a was also testimony that she didn't really direct or activities when she was in the house she didn't really supervisor he was just kind of there i mean so our i really meant that is that there was a she didn't if i believe my joint mycenaeans with him in his way he didn't really he didn't have the authority to tell her she to go home he didn't have the authority to ask her to come on earth i'm so that house his wife was the one that dealt yes correct and there are any more questions digital penetration occurred here but also that the defendant held a position of trust authority over this little girl the victim in this case was thirteen years old she  babysitter for the defendants stepchildren the youngest of which was a girl nine years old now whether or not mom actually paid the babysitter that's  this man was thirty nine years old it was his house these were his step children and to think for one minute that this man wasn't in a position of authority over this thirteen year old babysitter preposterous if she did anything wrong he could have told her to leave that house he could've taken her home he he was someone wrongly in charge of these two children she was there to babysit  whether or not this thirteen year old trusted or didn't for us then the question is was he in the position that she should have been able to and the answer to that question yes she should examination by she also stated that if she needed to go someplace with it so i'm going someplace she had to ask him a mission and for transportation to go there she also testified on that she felt she had to do what he asked of her when he asked her to perform the sex acts which occurred in the house and he would take this little girl on trips with them she stayed in a hotel with them in their house got flooded out so when she says she doesn't think she had to obey what he said i don't know why she said that but that's not accurate she did have to say that as far as these children were concerned and he was as much an employer of her as the children's mother was and was that the mother because of the fact that he would need to go to work come back but he is more in just an adult in the room with a thirteen year old their relationship is more than that and this is a is an element of the offense was up to the trial judge to decide whether the state had proven beyond reasonable doubt that these factors existed and he did act with a child under the age of twelve the definition of sex act in iowa is any sexual contact between two or more persons penetration it is substantially similar to the offense he committed here or it is more serious depending upon what sex acts took place there is no way around the fact this case that's not an improper factor that is considered a proper factor when you're determining whether or not to defend this conduct caused harm and psychological harm may be considered under those circumstances and there was evidence seized me there was evidence submitted in the pre sentence report and the victim's statement and as justice david pointed out this is supposed to go that provision is supposed to go beyond generic societal roles the state mentioned that mr jasper could authority to send her or any other he said her home you know this is stuff you mentioned that c w did she didn't have to obey even though the victim testified that she didn't she didn't feel like  or the mall but again she testified that way when he was when we were both there at the same time she didn't feel like he was supervising high that he really had any say in what she was doing he was just kind of there in fact i believe she testified that he spent most of his time in the garage and so there wasn't that sort of relationship between that and our relationship you know a trust  without getting into the underlying facts that this was a substantially equivalence offense that is substantial near touching regardless of the intrusion and that that the difference here wasn't there weren't any facts presented as to the under which is necessary in this case because the iowa statute has a product person on that and that's what don