actually at that point submit it to the jurisdiction i mean and that is something that certainly is certainly an argument that can be made or you counsel asking us to reverse based upon an analysis along the lines of and those have mainly been in the criminal element and they have also included in the case of alexis t a matter of involuntary commitment which again roaches and it's close to the civil element of the case and wh individual in the relation to the actual criminal statutes are talking about again you're talking about a person's rights in this matter and i don't believe that it's contested between the parties that still needs to be limited to some certain extent in trying to find an analogy to a jurisdiction because these are complex issues there is a very can consider while subject matter jurisdiction as it relates to bill bill allows you to get into the park it does not considering limited and limited circumstances you can necessarily a ticket to ride a specific right and i think that's the distinction here that justice from here is talking about you have subject matter jurisdiction where the courts can hear all just matters but when it comes to the power to render certain particular decision and especially as it relates to the trying to determine that there is an exception or just pick one matters or subject matter jurisdiction when a party has delivered yet interest when there are certain circumstances which arise now what's interesting with this case is the issues of jurisdiction region over the mansion in that we're talking about in three jurisdictional conflicts between parts of over states and that's where you start to talk about when you look at meter third type of jurisdiction well it may be carving out a exception it might be considering taking a different viewpoint of some of the cases before in the well in bellville hol there's not i know the way that a bright line rule would go would not necessarily impact you quite but if this is an area that you would write one would hope i think it would be it would be extremely helpful looking at eighteen earlier version of the same statute we know parent thought it clee section six zero one speaks in terms of quote jurisdiction of the subject matter of child custody terminations jurisdiction on the subject matter of such t used by the general assembly is traditional subject matter sense in the sense of a limitation upon the exercise of existing jurisdiction that's certainly was a very important piece of the appellate decisions case can you respond to matter of its own subject matter various the action and answering the question i would note that in siegel it talks about constitutional framework of that but then it goes on to continue on the line cases before toilet and i believe that that case made it binding and continue to follow some of the some of the law on these matters so i don't i think it's hard to it's hard to  law is in a row the law is changing and certainly you have a nine hundred sixty four constitution and the one nine hundred seventy amended you also have a two thousand and two bill bill toyota decision where the difficulty lies is there sort of things that kind of going to matter no matter what us and the respondents council or the appellee has stated that we've been fortunate to be looking at any other cases prior to two thousand and two which all are saying that there is a constitutional is not necessarily brought it back because there was no jurisdiction as it related to subject matter very station it could be attacked at any time so there's no finality in this kind of order there is no i don't believe so to be quite honest and fortunately with the situations things like any case it's something that if yours void and there's no actual and there's no actual discretion the court will actually make an argument that's something that that now i understand why the constitution was written the way it is you want to give a broad outline so that cases that are coming before the board are not going to be limited by a legislature or a jurisdictional matter however there are circumstances effie get into the part where you really have to determine there are sometimes and that should actually be limited and i think that's something that we are asking the court consider here as to the extent that it actually relates to our case again with the jurisdictional arguments the legislature stated or did actually and i mention this in my reply brief actually mentions that jurisdiction of this case is going to actually relate to where the because the parties submitted to the jurisdiction of the court retain jer's stiction until the dispute arose and that the u c c j a sets forth the template for how courts in different states are to resolve the issue of where the case should further go forward and then until the work in champaign county conceded that the the jurisdiction now was in the lead over every adventurous diction which would give  anality to the court order that was entered some years ago and could be enforced up until that time then no jurisdiction was conceded to another state that's possible is your honor asking whether that order would actually have then which would have been allowed until the were made or into doesn't work in right i don't believe so based upon what i'm reading here that if you don't have jurisdiction you can't be in kind of a middle ground or there are some issues here where that work can certainly be doing that now if there's a matter of you're talking about there's jurisdiction until it's contested by some point and then afterwards after the u c c gets involved and you follow that procedure and if you didn't follow this if the trial court erred then that's got to beat brought forth either frankly i like this is writing that it was a dissent that was not the case decision it was a dissent and he was basically saying oh boy look at criminal so maybe there's a different stance or so so maybe what our constitution's appropriate interpretation is to say oh one virtue akim significant restriction of liberty and i've run more gray hair trying to figure this one out myself but the bottom line is i'm thinking well maybe we're trying to say this due process connotations should enter into the picture here but it's only ben has is justice roemer just in his dissent saying brecker was saying there's an exception in twenty one whether it's extending a prison sentence beyond what the statutory authorized something along those lines that simply isn't the case here none of the i think is a perfect example but all of these cases provide i believe that if her period remedy for a litigant they're not happy with the result is to comply with the of the word jurisdiction really doesn't mean jurisdiction in this state and for that reason i think that there's not much question but  actually concurred with the majority's decision that there was a statutory limitation jurisdiction and as such he was attempting to try to explain a little bit better how these how those types of jurisdiction actually well much of that is because it was written in the original judgment that way that he was going to be going for a substantial period of time that related to a large part to the inaction the reason cases coming forward at this point is because council have filed a petition to change the custody in december of two thousand and thirteen asking that the child actually come to illinois and reside there and he ordered the mother  d on a section on on it with an actual order and order the mother over thirteen day period to come to illinois to and bring the mile child with her and that was something that judge me commuters that it was an anthe so we have a situation here and i and i and i i concur with this where other states have you have a statute which is set up for the purpose of determining which state is going to have the child  and we went through the entire process the way that it should have the way that it was stated as of sashimi with two judges but what you have now and i fear is if we do have a situation where it does go back to the circuit court we will have a change of custody proceeding in champaign county we also have a court in nevada which pursuant to the same conference has accepted jurisdiction and there's already been a  that's going to create more confusion and it's going to create more answers create more problems than answers and it's an unfortunate situation to the extent that the statute is talking about  think is a different dimension than what all these cases have been or this or as they relate to jurisdiction because we are dealing with jurisdiction going going with state lines and i think that it's pretty clear here that whether that issue and however the constitution determine whether the court has original jurisdiction in this matter this is something that is going to be one where the other right or wrong continue to be defined it redefined by the oars in this matter so i appreciate that or eight in this matter or because there is something that as you mentioned a bright line rule i mean from a proceed it's something that it certainly would it certainly would be helpful but again i think we have to be mindful of the circumstances here and the actual and the actual search and the actual marriage that's going on so again we would ask that or affirm the decision of