that and that has a very specific procedure for resending that the reason for that very specific procedure is so that the statute does not run afoul of title forty and smith also says it makes no sense on the other hand to allow those court recognized certain facts that are in this case which would make this case also reconciled with jackson versus news the court did in dictum go on to say that these are these are reasons which meeting and basically said that and a voluntary acknowledgement cases there is no education and therefore you know the voluntary college of the cases usually don't work and that's  why it should be the american presumptions only now in that case mr smith made the argument that well it was supposed to be the marital presumptions only in the statute would have said only five they want to instead of just the presumption under section five and the supreme court said well no because the statute also required adjudication and that's how they limit it out of these issues where you have a voluntary on the paternity and so that was some of the analysis in determining whether or not mr smith would be allowed to bring his action after having signed the a p but that the supreme court and smith did not even acknowledge the case of jackson versus in there so now the department has argued sounds like discussed that and specifically done that there are distinguishing factors between these cases which makes the smith case not overrule jackson persons news of the cases are sufficiently different in jackson versus new som there was not a signing of the a p what there was was an order that was signed by the mother and the father when and where the father consented and said yeah probably dad and the court in jackson versus  they agree order to be bound by genetic testing because he's logged into believing that he is the dad it's a half hearted attempt and it's it can be construed as an acknowledgement knowing that he was going to be adjudicated the father he did not show up so he consented to that limitations the fact that he didn't make any further effort to actually have that genetic testing because he was lauded in believing that he was in fact the father shows that he did not have any actual knowledge of relevant facts to determine otherwise testing it was around the time he was said he would be bound by genetic testing or what about in two thousand and one that was in two thousand and one oh yes and then it when he came back in two thousand and four and said you know i do want to have this parentage action brought up again and i want to have kinetic testing swaby relieved and not knowing at that point in time heather boy that the natural mother was not willing to submit the d n a test and therefore that to your stash of limitations has run but the actual pleading itself from two thousand and four that you filed was brought into the parentage act under seven b seven b dash five because he did not have at the end  test to bring the action under seventy five the action was brought in the carriage act asking for a d n a test to be submitted by the minor child at that point time one of the allegations was that they had an agreement to have that done in two thousand and four and then the mother notified him that no she was going to bring the child for d n a testing because i think the allegation was you can just tell by looking at him he's the dad so from two thousand four to two thousand and eleven that's the statue of limitation should be told because there was no agreement to submit to d n a testing at that point in time when he may have had actual knowledge of relevant facts in two thousand and eleven the  test was finally submitted to and then maybe two thousand and then once the d n a sest came back to show the mystery entry and was not the father of hayden board then he was able to bring his action finally under seventy five  if the course of history that you must have had actual knowledge in two thousand and four at that point time the statue of limitations told for the duration of the mother's not agree not agreement to submit d n a test that point in time not exactly because if you showed up first in a test we wouldn't be here today course but the fact that he didn't show up for his d n a test is it is a good indicator that at that point in time he really didn't have a reasonable belief that he wasn't the father if he had a reasonable belief that he wasn't the father reasonable person would have showed up and had that determine that he was not the father and he wouldn't pay child support for ten years but one of the record shows well i mean intrigued by word i mean that we should note that the record shows that based upon the fact that he had this sporadic reaction to the you're the dad notice from the department who had then said no kno here is failure to do right he was expected to do by the order shows that he had earlier been deceived into argue it if there was no evidence that that's i mean this is a lot different than hearsay i have ongoing relationship with her but nothing to do with the child even though i was giving her some money sometimes and she always dismissed this tissue under seventy five and specifically said the statute of limitations of trial and your question is the same as buying it there is no evidence how can the trial court rule that way we never got into evidence we never had a hearing on well when did seventy five action if he has the d n a test in hand and so that's why the statue of limitations is told to the extent that at that point in time if you had actual knowledge of relevant facts if she's not willing to submit to the on a test run he knows he's not willing to submit to  years earlier than willing to in two thousand the release he said he wanted it she said that's ok that's correct that is correct but he didn't even bother show up right and you know as i would submit like before that at that point in time he did not have actual knowledge of relevant facts he had seen the child prior to the two thousand and one agreed in order to be bound by genetic testing he really had developed any relationship with this child until two thousand and ten two thousand level when he finally s stopped to do something about this yes and that's where we're left with the unknown was there something that happened in two thousand and four where he would have actual knowledge of the facts we don't know the fact that he did father cases a good indicator and that's what test if she's already agreed to submit the unit tests and the time has run there's no obligation board to submit the d n a tests you say it doesn't make any difference if she doesn't have to do it affect you as told during the time that she doesn't that's correct and of course there's three distinct points in time we're talking about number one we're talking about two thousand and one when she said sure i'll submit that and i can understand your argument if she never agreed to submit to a d n a test but the idea that she agreed to submit he never shows up and then years down the road he says oh up the statute of limitations  struck but at the end of the day you think it should be the policy of the state of old boy that the determination of true fact heritage should be left open to question for the rest of these people's lives mohnish he asked for their genetic testing and i think as opposed to being lulled into believing he wasn't the father once he was defaulted by the department and the administrative proceedings the record reveals on may thirtieth two thousand and one he sent a letter to the department protesting the default and saying i want genetic testing  the policy of the state of illinois it's to try to get an accurate determination of who the parent is but to do it expeditiously so we don't have a situation like this where everybody situations like that and this easily could have been avoided if mr intricate just showed up assuming that the paternity test he has is is accurate and we have to assume that this boy we do have to assume that standing not if the person is ok is he is considered the father due to of a presumption resulting from  the presumption from a marital for a marriage which may be repotted by clear and convincing evidence and one voluntary presumptions are done according to the proper procedures the form i believe the foreman which somebody executes a voluntary presumption again advisors they allege father that they have the right to the d n a testing but i think one other important point  file a section seven be there five action this is a voluntary presumption under the act voluntary presumptions standing by themselves are conclusive on the issue of whether somebody is the father we know that from section b which says that it that a voluntary acknowledgment creates a conclusory presumption six e says that a judicial proceeding one and in exchange everybody else agrees that he will not be considered the father the test excludes him so that's another reason why this can't even be considered  effect you're attacking the voluntariness of the acknowledgment saying that it was based on five so it wasn't truly voluntary then i would believe that if it was determined father reserved to a presumption under section section five of the act while the only one that would fit here would be section five eight or so what i've actually done is i just bypassed all that argument got to the point  what would be the objective standard scase well i think this court should be very leery of legislature probably as making a ruling that anybody gets  limited very much it's just we're just inviting constant problems and i did cite and then added an exhibit showing a long quote from that kate's case running around now because he didn't contest it or didn't bring up a question in the course of two years afterwards did find out until three years afterwards he stuck and that's what they're trying to correct and that's what's happened in this case as well mr edgerton came in he  he was the father because he had the danger reaction hold on hold on i don't think about this you know talks in this board you know we would submit that if we were allowed to advance into a hearing that this evidence would be  father right now he's stuck he asked to develop a relationship with this child he's been paying child support for ten years for this child or over ten years and it's not his child the reason seventy five was an act it was an opportunity for additional system to get it right the d n a test shows by scientific evidence this is not his child illegally it still is in the less there is some methodology some remedy for him to use to get it right and that's why  believe that seventy five should allow mr entry and that remedy based upon his facts we would submit that the facts in this case are more similar to those in the jackson versus nuisance case there's been some argument about we're looking at is the purpose and the purpose there was that he was defeated adjudicated to be the father based on a sub the seventh which was not a scientific test now he has had that scientific test he's not the father we know that guy again he had all that available to him he did and that's that's the that's the crux of the matter here is you know if you know i had gone through it and i've had this discussion with you why didn't you just go through with it and well i thought it was mark you know she told me as mine i didn't have any reason not to believe so and that's what we would spit that's the only so there be some finality to all this there should be your honor except in the cases where we just need to get it right it's the exact same issues