reached the substance partial in my argument i want to point out to the court that there does appear to be a difference of opinion as is standard of review we've indicated in our polling brief that the standard of review is did no because we're asking you court to consider this issue as a matter of heard and if we don't dispute the fact that the court made a conclusion that there wasn't a collective typical trying to affect relating to there are things like the house is too cold there are common throughout the house the collective specifically defined under the cap to apply only to high risk adults with disabilities so even assuming which we are for a purpose as of this argument that the court was correct in finding that these children were collected because the petitioner in this cause differently there are family or household members who have been abused and there are high risk adults who have been abused neglected or exploited so if the court makes it the conclusion of law as your other has suggested that there has been the collapse abused neglected and or exploited so there are again good legislature in that part of the id v a s suggesting that again we're treating these petitioners differently and again we're not contesting the trial court's find or conclusion that there has been to collect for contesting whether or not the court had the authority to act or enter this foreigner for these children without first making a finding or conclusion that this petitioner was a high risk adult with disability more in the written findings made by the trial court and she concluded both here and yes there are details findings that are set forth in the record findings with regard to what the court who the parties were who the minors were who the abusing vigils it's difficult to say don't we try to confuse the court but i want to talk when we dealing with the ex parte order of protection the trial court indicated that it found abuse and that the find that abuses neglect when the trial court entered the findings with regard to the plenary order of protection the trial court struck out the word then there could be a five you go to the act that you order was appropriate however i'm just on the record that's before the core the only conclusion that was made is that these children were neglected and they were not abused the child parts pacifically struck the word because this petitioner was not a high risk adult with disability that the trial court did not have the authority to act in the way that it did any good i don't mean to repeat something about a simple we're not contesting what the trial court found or the conclusions of the trial court reached were suggesting to the court at the conclusion that the trial court reached which is nicholai act that existed is not the basis of the entry of a border protection there may be another vehicle available under illinois law if it's respectfully submitted for which these children can be checked in but in the fashion when the domestic violence act was utilized in this case it is submitted to the court that the court acted outside its authority to do show because the legislature saw fit to just dispute that or we're not here to dispute that but worse respectfully suggest into the court used to court in the first place didn't have the authority to ensure that a quarter and spite of the fact of the conclusion that it reached under collect because the death portion of the statu have thirty three seventy two we give the language explaining ordinary meaning and we read this the action as a whole it considers all relevant provisions together i'm going to refer to sections one zero three sections two fourteen sections t there and then it says the court shall issue an order of protection the court we must find that the family or household member has been abused section one of three defines abuse section one of three does that type of protection and i think we would all agree that the domestic violence here is not a full sweeping type of act that is going to protect every type of instance for every type of situation that doesn't fall under the umbrella o i'm not suggesting that you can i mean you feel you could be free the court could be free to look at whatever provision that it wants but if it goes ahead and looks at a different provision then i think it violates what the supreme court has said is that when you a statute and the statute is clear in your acting or this statute you must act within those strictures you cannot go beyond the strictures of that stature and so i guess in a way and i and i apologies are doing this but i think in a way i am saying the trial court