the rights of the original party as an intervening party the second reason is that the plain language of the marriage in dissolution of marriage act itself authorizes a non spouse intervenor the situation so as to be eligible for such an award would know that on june first two thousand and six with the assistance of counsel after hearing extensive arguments i'm leaving those for and against the petition to intervene just walk in to grant that petition included in that order entered that same day certain remedies that are only available to the original parties and those are remedies where the act itself the dissolution marriage act makes very clear that those are exclusive graham in the absence of that kind of express the claim for attorney's fees it's our position that never reach the merits of those and as a result the issue of whether attorneys fees are available through any of the three vehicles in the act two an interven so as a result of that i guess i i understand what playground are saying but i don't think that's what the actors and the second realize that there's been a write up what what we're talking  attorney's fees so how does that that how do you get that interpretation well because if you think of it in a broader in the broader context of what subset what i'm doing what section five always involved at that time which was brought didn't just include proceeding falls outside  i don't believe so i don't believe so i do i mean we had allegations in our motion and that was that was that was filed in february two thousand those allegations established that mr p yes i don't see i don't think so well that he made the filing was the act but also certain knowledge so there were mistakes he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter of his yes yes what else was the screaming well our motion alleged payout that he that he made these filings and started to object to mr gottschall having contact with children referring to to to stop council is a matter of war how can it possibly be true to be a proper for a father to say i'm concerned about a guy spent time with my young children as the girlfriend of my former wife when this guy beat his former wife to death how he explained to me how under  are not raising as a theory of law i understand the i'm not suggesting that that was at least in this appeal an improper decision i fully understand and i don't pretend ignorance that i don't i'm not feigning confusion as to why jeff blackman rule as he did if you in fact ruled if you rolled on the merits so i am not suggesting that there is a huge difference when you're sitting as a family law judge roberts said we're supposed to reverse it i'm not sure we're supposed to reverse and so this is big because former wife the court temporarily granted this request pending a psychological evaluation mr goble mr goble sought leave to intervene voluntarily and he was given leave to do so important to note that this intervention was voluntary i believe since just rights really were perfectly aligned with angela pow what was what was the reason given but of course there were two reasons i believe the first reason is that the court explicitly after hearing indicated unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation so it sounds like a position where the rich and i would agree and the court what i would say i think it's something necessary to protect the interest of these children which is the ultimate responsibility of the clearly had a question as to whether five a wait at all even a part but i believe that the court went on to say based on what i just read that  necessary to protect the interest of these children so i believe that was on the merits now i do believe that regarding sexual sex by the way the court also had a question about whether or not that would apply to intervene  the court looked at the particular provision realized that it refers directly we're talking about final contribution to section five zero three j all said i don't have anything to apply i don't have anything to apply for the statutory scheme does not have to place intervenors when i when the statutory scheme directs us to two particular portions of the i court regarding the attorneys involved at that time indicated that not necessarily the reason for why it was incorrectly in the motion listed as murderous voluntary manslaughter but an at that time was that the issue was raised by mr goethals counsel that there was not only major conviction and not a verdict in fact there was a felony mr lerner amended on its face his petition and of course everybody got i think the court really didn't place too much on that station i each time the legislature was setting forth different parts of the statute and different amendments spouse would be more limiting party review or all of those but that's clearly not what's happened going back even to the to the the division of maintenance for the order made those factors and the allocation of personal property or marital property factors when you look through those one section it will refer i think is it would be very easy to interchange the use of those but i think the important thing is by looking at the entire i am d n a it's very clear that the higher stash uses that back of the different use of the word spouse and party is not actionable that's my brief sort of exhaustive list shows these two different terms are used throughout jack they're not always interchangeable you mean you think the legislature of the vision some sort of i realize that the vast majority occasionally probably more than the vast majority doesn't address that issue because you don't generally have i'm not department on state agency interview but the fact of the situation presents one doesn't mean that the legislature meaning related to the two sponsons certainly think it certainly can but i don't think it's what i'm confident that the act doesn't say is that that interpretation of that wh this because he doesn't just because an interviewer might intervene and never ask for relief from the party doesn't mean that that party can't be ever i agree it was really the worst of both parties here in terms of allowing legally