regulation says neglect is environment injurious to the health and welfare of a child the kids boils down to the case boils down to the  eighty seven i added the phrase injuries environment as part of the definition of neglect that's right that's correct that's what they did then they didn't go back to anchorage and add it to any records there are they did not and frankly i'm not sure why i i think ambiguity concerns about what that phrase standing alone would mean it seems rather odd that seven years later the legislature would have no concerns about putting that in the juvenile court where the effects of a neglect finding can be i think far more devastating than those of the anchor so it's an oddity that's for sure but we also know that before it was removed from ankara the exact phrase was in the adoption act as a grounds of unfitness so we see the legislature using that phrase without further explanation i'm simply that phrase standing alone twice in the juvenile court or the adoption act taking it out of this act and i think when you look at the concerns of the legislative sponsor about the phrase implementing ankara has the authority to implement this regulation because it didn't just use the phrase environment injurious or interests environment it provided legislature took it out and frankly it may have been at d c if that's his urging and it was never revisited and i think that's all you can take that to mean i think i just cannot believe that thirteen years after that the legislature and this is what we're talking about this in terms of today's legislature that the legislature today doesn't think that an is challenging and indicated finding of neglect or abuse if there has been a court finding out from a collector or abuse that person is not under the younker entitle to a hearing and so we know that the child under the juvenile court act and they are for if this is a valid regulation she shouldn't have been entitled to a hearing and that was what the motion to dismiss was about  ago a farm the circuit court's findings in the torture of her first child the circuit court found that the abuse or neglect was inflicted by the parent in this case the natural ok so why are we here again today if she's our d n a for under one we need her under two or what i mean how does it work she says she's found responsible for the torture of her first child yes by the circuit court this  i think section seven sixteen of the anchor comes into play and it says if there is footage or just a finding of the quacked then the person challenging the indicated finding is not entitled to a hearing so the legislature  like i don't believe so no an obviously i think what brought this up was she made a legal argument that she shouldn't have been indicated at all under allegation number sixty well that i suppose raise the legal argument so the hearing went forward on that alone in the able to make a decision which the director reversed but you know i  one can disagree with that thirty years ago but what did they do they took a single phrase because it couldn't be and wasn't i suppose defined by the legislature and the legislature as the sponsor at least and indicated it would be placing a child in and on various environment to its health and welfare placing the child at substantial risk of harm a parent's behavior president a significant danger to a child safety the death of another child in the home the danger of physical injury anyone really say that those would not be in the quacked under the and that the legislature intended for those not to neglect i think that were hard pressed to come to that conclusion because i i think that it is elevating form over substance and losing titles rather than the substance of a perversion and i believe the case law has told us that that is simply not the way to interpret stature other arguments are made in my brief which i know that your grad and i will rely on i'm significantly we feel that just the plain language of of the nkrumah doesn't even allow us to get to the history of of the provision but obviously the main point has become what does the deletion of that phrase moon and to see if that's the leaves that it does not mean anything to the validity of this regulation and we would ask this court to reverse the circuit court's decision he plays the course i'd like to start by responding to certain comments made during a the opponent's argument first i'd like to clarify what might be a confusion about the history of  but but to be fully candid with the court the anchor provides that and you see fs in its regulations provides for specific periods of time that those indicated findings in other words were that one state remains on the database f or certain period of time depending on the application then the name is removed it was five years is that correct five years is the standard i'm out it obviously it goes up for i believe for include but are limited to the following and then the lists of examples substantial risk of physical injuries or is found in the definition of abuse in anchor so these are not at least by the  sixty which does give in context some what it considers examples of environment injurious but nevertheless the argument that somehow it was in the intention of representative peter i hundred seventy nine to leave it to the department to clarify what environment injurious meant and the proposition that they did clarify it is not not the case and vomiting jurgis has just been sitting  in creates this less this database that we've been talking about it is rational for the general assembly to conclude that it wants a marijuana definition of who can be put on the list and the the juvenile court act and the abused or neglected child reporting they the general assembly has chosen for whatever for its reasons to enact the definition of neglect in the juvenile court act and the definition of neglect in the abused and neglected child in reporting it could have quite simply cross reference which is done in many statutes we use the definition somewhere in order to be on that list the conduct must fall within the definition specifically and hang for anchor creates the list not the juvenile  database for a finding that's not contained within the statute to creates the database so i think that raises constitutional or two process issues which we haven't briefed but without considering the thing is whether or not that list it can be all over the rest of the c f s is databases which as it obviously is but not on that list well again when of this was the raised it below right the argument was you don't have if you chose not to brief it to to fight that that's your decision that ours were not bound by some idea that he chose not to fight there so i just due process argument or conflict between the branches if you chose not to brief that why would we fi prevented from going to and grow a base on any appeal now that's right that's what it means you're doing yes ok well why on earth would we find follow at first as to whether the questions before the court h we can see the ministry to review law provides that the court can consider any matter any question floor fact raised by the record it ministry of record and to the extent that that question is raised this court can consider that however what procedural matter because of the regulations cited by justice novel whether or not regardless of whether injuries environment is in the definition of a crack i would at least request the offer the opportunity to brief that supplemental this lady was just indicated no judges agree there's no findings anyway of abuse or neglect and if she's been reported and in debt can't be in i would think you are just talking for myself if there are cases out there like that that would seem to me so filing the one thousand nine hundred eighty taking it out of injuries environment as being the sole basis of it reporting but if it's in a court again the theory being not that  in the brief to see if s has a remedy it's part of how our system of government works when the c f s creates its list under when it goes out to protect the children of illinois can come back to the general assembly and say we don't have enough authority we're finding situations in which we think a service of god a child is abused or neglected but we can't although we can take them into juvenile court we can't put the month anker because it doesn't contain environment injuries and then the general assembly as the representatives of the people who make the laws that the executive branch and forces can make a decision which is whether or not to broaden the definition under anchor to include environment injurious that's respectfully where the remedy lights and not with this court i'd like to make just one final example of the environment injurious is such a vague concept by everyone's admission it's hard to perhaps conceive of a situation in which one might say that there isn't a child is being subjected to an environment injurious but not where there is a lack of care doc appropriate care this case presents with respect to m w one such situation nobody had such there was no suggestion at any point that him go he was not the parents help the child with her homework get her piano lessons but dad happens to smoke a pipe and mom smokes cigarettes