or next case on the call the doctor does a general number fifteen case number one one four eight one seven a rate and re the parentage of j w minor counsel for the   the issue in this case is what is the proper burden of proof in actions brought pursuant to the parents contract this chord as stated in the case of j s say paternity may be established on the filing of the petition pursuant to the paternity act that any parental rights of the biological father such as the right to have custody or the right to have visitation with the child shall not be granted unless it is in the child's best interest now i'm sure your writers are aware of the particular faction this case  this case j w at a pressure of the age of six to make it six and a half years of age is when the biological father person by the name of steve taylor initiated a this case by the decision stated that section six zero seven eight of the marriage act is the relevant standard to be considered whether visitations saw one of the heritage tract or the marriage act and what the fourth district appellate court did is said that section six zero seven eight essentially is the standard to be used in deciding whether or not a  a petitioner is going to be afforded visitation now vent goes contrary to what this court has said and in j s a and also and i believe in re the matter of john and and that is bad the simple filing of a petition and even a finding of paternity does not automatically confer visitation rights on that individual but rather that it should be a best interest of the child standard to be used now when i filed my brief the the case of witten dorf versus worthington had not yet been published versus worthington case it's a fourth district case it involves a well it was concurred in the pinion by two of the same justices who wrote  case and in that case which i believe came out in november of two thousand and twelve the fourth district tell a court says that they find that section fourteen it isn't six o seven that applies it is simply six o two and six so true under the marriage act says that it's the best interest of the child that is the paramount consideration that must take place in deciding whether or not visitation a curse now i would be a time to reflect upon the opinion of the fourth district and  vv initial assessment by them at six o seven a is a political simply because we're talking about visitation but when you really look at six o two i'm sorry it's six zero seven eight in your read it it says a parent not granted custody of the child is entitle to reasonable visitation while your honor's when i thought about that i said well how is that request for visitation not custody six o seven a comes into play when you have who married individuals who were who are now deciding or so which would dissolution dissolution of marriage who is going to have custody of the child is it going to be the mother who has is going to be joint custody is she going to have be the residential parent and if solo then under the provision of six o seven a it says will then the other person whether even a male of whether it be the father or the mother is then automatically going to be  when was steve paler ever a litigant with respect to custody he wasn't he simply injected himself into this case after custody of jail it out of j w had already been determined some six and a half years after the birth of the child he first place and dissolved in this case and under the the standard at fourth district does by now changing the rules and saying that six or seven applies it then doesn't place the burden upon him it places the burden upon my client jason wilson to say wait a minute thrust upon a higher burden of proof when he hasn't done anything so the the rationale of the of the fourth district with respect to to creating this additional burden upon the nonmoving party i don't think is appropriate and when and this court has never addressed the issue even though you have the biggest say case in a rage on john it really hasn't addressed what is the proper burden of proof i submit to you that when you look word that the court before this week was struggling with is this word relevant relevant back to us so what kind of statutory construction tools could you suggest to us as to how we should interpret the word relevant as it's used in section fourteen with judge i mean sorry you're right or the first thing that i did when i looked at they had were relevant they went to the dictionary there or put in there for no reason at all because if you look at six o seven and you look through all of the sections of it you are only really a parasitic says look to be relevant at no time did steve taylor present a petition seeking custody of j w now let me tell you how that could have occurred under the facts of this case there was already a mother and a bother that had been you dish really recognize there the issue of custody had already been decided so six zero seven eight does not become portable to steve taylor unless this was a situation where you had an unmarried woman let's assume that amy had never become married that she was raising j w and let's say for whatever reason she was in the first steve taylor would have had the opportunity to come in file that when you put fission for visitation but also once his heritage had been estab lished he could have moved in or haas to be challenging the fitness of a name but in this particular case what we have is a cut the issue of custody already have been decided so then six  seven eight is not relevant or a portable in the pic in these proceedings with respect to visitation because it has no bearing whatsoever on whose petition for simple visitation you have to help with your argument to guide the court in a finding of that in the best interest of the child in determining custody joint custody removal or visitation the court shall apply the relevant standards of the illinois marriage  amy wills i'm asking about steve taylor was there a judgment as to parentage as steve taylor there was a fine dean there was a finding the bad he was the biological father of j w significant enough to invoke section fourteen of the parent object yes ok and then that the statute says that after that's judgments been entered then the court may enter all of these orders including visitation rights including custody and in order to do that the court should use the relevant factors in the marriage and to lose so i'm not sure i have to me  facts before you know it for the buy you got married woman i forget her name she was the attorney out of  possibly so in that instance very is something that was combined with the the paternity action in this case we don't have that in this particular case one of these facts the whole issue of custody has already been decided and it was never never addressed by steve pinker so is it even something that automatically that each provision even the court has the authority to address it it wasn't relevant in this case because it had already asked for visitation so once they had been determined and we stipulated to them i mean there's no dispute that he is the biological father but we have i think we all have to recognize the farai what was the heritage act created for and we're talking about you know steve taylor and and and his rights and everything else with it but really the  let's look to see what is in the best interest of the child regardless of anything else and doesn't the statute direct the court as to how to make that determination it processes which the court shall determine in accordance with the relevant factors set forth and they a my marriage and dissolution marriage act to guide the court in a finding of best interest of the child so i am kind of back at what does relevant factors mean instead well as as i indicated before and i think even if you look at some of the cases that if you can just give me a minute here the relevance to relevance standards makes it clear that not every rule of court would apply to a parent need this whooshed of marriage case applies with equal force to a parent in the parentage case so even the fourth district has acknowledged it simply because the they talk about the role of the standards we're not going to go through each one of the standards set forth in the marriage act and say they automatically get applied to an action mean that it becomes relevant or likable so how should your honour's look to what look to each of these and look to the look to the interpretation that the fourth district appellate court has said and that is that it's six o two of the marriage act that is really the focus that has to be undertaken or considered with respect to visitation and that box about the best interest and getting to the best interest would have been here is the trial court judge karen wall i believe is the one who listen to all the testimony the testimony from the experts from the doctor annual basis for there to be an evaluation of this trial because at the time that this action was brought the child was not in a position to recognize  marty judges my name is jim or tankas and i represent steve taylor who is the legal birth father of this child justice peace let's get a couple things straight because we have some good joint custody of trade and visitation in that page for the appellate court opinion states clearly on september ninth two thousand and nine in the consolidated cases the truck court entered an order apparent as to steve it wasn't just a finding counsel suggests that the language and six zero seven because it makes reference to quote a parent not granted custody that that somehow wouldn't apply to someone who didn't fight for custody i don't see any distinctions there whatsoever i think that language under fourteen a one clearly is the language that's relevant how could it not be relevant i mean if you talk about visitation and a your honor i quote in my brief the giants case the giants vs jerk case clearly states quote the parenting check makes no distinction between the standards for these issues in parentage cases and those in cases where marriage is dissolved and that's exactly what you have here a trial court has not taken away from its position to determine best interests you rulings in cases involving best interest don't disappear because this is a parent each case the court has to look at the best interests of the child but the court must look at the relevant factors set forth in the older marriage this luzhin marriage and there are two factors that clearly are shown  so two and six or seven those are the actual statutory language the sections in the divorce act that deals with these issues how could they not be relevant mr martin because i note that when mr sutton my or i believe a case that although they don't point to which provision six zero two six six zero seven and zero you agreed do mention best interest in our opinions in in the face of that you respond with two appellate court judgement i don't read those cases to say that in determining best interest you have to avoid the mandates of six or seven i really don't i simply see those cases a saying in these cases like all cases involving kids you have to determine what is in the best interests it may very well be a different set of factors if you're looking at some of those not been involved in a child's life steve did everything right the moment he found out that this was his child my gotta have a child have a daughter he fight he becomes involved in this child's life he files petitions he does everything he can so this isn't a case where he knew about or had any reason to suspect that a sure i wasn't the original attorney but i do believe that what counsel said is correct he filed a petition to establish him as father and within that prayer asked alternatively for either joint custody visitation and the like but it certainly was it was all contained within that pleading there's no question that he went to court to establish himself to teach to have this have the trial court determine that he was the father but just as thomas just again trying to go back to your your question i don't think for a moment that i'm suggesting to you that best interests as set forth in these opinions is such that you can't use six o seven i don't think that and it may be you know maybe maybe that's what this crowd meant but i don't think that's what it said six o right in six zero two does say best interest is your argument that physical emotional moral or emotional health encompasses the best interest standard is that the gist of it well i don't think yes i think that when a quote looks at best interest the court looks at all those factors but i think that the way the structure of this statue works is that you should presume it's in a child's best interest that in fact they have a relationship with the parent where the a legal parent established by court order where there's the biological parent that should be the presumption in fact that's what six o two talks about six o two talks about the court show presume that the maximum involvement and cooperation of both parents begun in the physical mental moral and emotional well being of their child is in the best interest of the child so without regard to six or seven you have under six so to a presumption that it's in this child's best interest that you maximize t contact i do think it should be the burden on someone else mother is not here contesting this this is the legal father who is contesting this it should be upon the person contesting get to show how does this visitation that  legislature says presumes this is in the best interest of the top j generally the child here isn't going to care about all these different labels we're putting on people oh this is her biological dad this is her legal dad this is her step dad with mr merrill this child's going to be concerned with whether or not someone in her life shows her love affection attention that's what this is about and this is why i think if you look at these particular statutes it does give the court the opportunity to look at all these things we're not going to look to see what we label a parent or stepparent or legal parent how does this child how does this child react you have to remember too that the unusual part about this is steve has a relationship with this child if you look at the exhibits just thirty or forty pictures of these two together hugging each other all these things it's pretty remarkable that one could conclude that she doesn't know there's an e mail clearly where they talk about talk sitting down  client steve taylor less rights than the janitor at the grade school who who can go see this child put on the christmas play there was never any reason to do they act but so now then the question becomes well she didn't say anything about steve well yeah possibility of confusion bad grades all these things i asked a clearly well what about when the new stepdad came in and what about mr merrill did you experience any of these things no not none of these things she had a brain new person stepdad command and she well mr mellon originally just took the position that he wanted to look at dr fry may belong here but is this case developed and then i think he realised that there might be an issue because he found specifically that there was no serious end basically said well maybe this would be serious and dangerous something to that effect dr fried never said that and one of the common and this means the implemented attempts here of every year my clients not even involved but we go to some psychologist to see if she knows anything more about her father is that realistic is that someone who's ever going to have visitation i mean that's not how would this child ever become aware of the fact now there's a reality check here i can tell you this she lives in a small town even after all this is going on who's babysitting this child my client's sister so she's involved with all of this extended family except steve can't talk or say here i bet you any amount of money that if you go to the school this kid knows who steve probably is at this point his talk small town community and she goes and sees other people other people have said this you know it's a real tough one because i represent a fellow who was through  child thrilled that he's got a daughter and now he does everything he can and he's the one that says don't interfere with this guy's relationship that's important this is very important he tries to respect everyone here and he wants to have some opportunity  have a relationship he knows it may not be every other weekend whatever it might be he's willing to take on this is in this child's interest it is in the child's best interest the legislature has told you that the legislature has determined that it is presumed to be in the best interest the six zero seven standards should be applied it should prevent and rob a child of her natural birth father and all of the entitlements and all of the benefits of that relationship unless you find that they're serious and dangerous i don't think this is  the chaff to look at things they determine what's in their interest but when you create this overwhelming burden that some out my guy has to come in and out prove that oh my it's not all of these bad things are going to happen to or that's impossible this is a fell who should see this child it should be regulated it can be determined by the trial court but the standards here that were stablished by the fourth district in making business decisions are correct i don't believe  you make sense for to no one thought say realm standards are you really going to say that now we have a statute that talks about the best interests of the child in two separate section six o two and six or seven and those are relevant for determining visitation  relationship that he wants to talk about between j w and himself was less then ninety days because if you look at the facts of this case what happened was in december  december twenty fourth of two thousand and eight is when steve taylor and amy introduced steve taylor as this is your real dad and i think that the but also within those nineteen days my client that was over the christmas holiday had visitation with the child so in reality we're talking about a two week period out of  and a half year old life at that point steve taylor has been doing all the right things is there but the statute focuses i know we pocus is not what effect is the introduction of steve taylor as a father is a biological father what is there going to hang out on j w and all the parties agreed in stipulated you know what we're going to have an expert here hearing where all parties in this age would simply be the woman and the man present evidence to the trial court the trial court then receiving there then that evidence judge first of all with respect to the unmarried woman there has never been in issue of custody custody litigated because this individual who is now filing for the first time a petition  a court so therefore we don't have to consider the marriage act because it's not a likeable when it comes down to only an issue of visitation brought pursuant to the parent objects we keep on talking about talking about the mother and father and in this case it would have been jason and amy so talking about the involvement of both of these individuals so six  when you talk about parenting jack refers to the best interest of the child and it focuses in on the person bringing the action certainly jason wills would never be bringing in action to establish a parent child relationship it is a it has already been you dish we recognize that he's the parent and he has already been there has really been a finding with respect to custody certain rights that flowed from that their father was only minimally involved where is the involvement in this case of steve taylor it raises the self to a level of some creating some relationship and where does the parent to jack say that we're going to eight year period and they said no no no that's certainly to law so there'd there should be you know we should shift the focus to any good things that steve may have done it really amounts to what's in the best interest of this minor at this point and whether he should be injected into her life but the final thing i wanted to say is i believe if you look at judge walls order a ten page order was very specific with respect to her fine and even if the scores going to take a position they had serious in danger man should be the standard of the report from fried in my opinion and i believe in judge walls opinion sets or serious in danger man with respect to the psychological and emotional