i'm sure that under the circumstances that the court could step aside and say it won't just particular case because the facts are such and so that we have a problem child  of the three children and well then obviously there was no reason to to even address the biological relation as for  instance i could give my property to my three kids and move them church of the catholic church and that is the issue of the biological relation would not come mother her grandmother and grandfather has before destroyed heirs of my body or some such like that she is now going to years after well right after the death of father of her if that is i would assume that that there's no hard and fast i would assume that and i would argue and urge the work to require as a as a and those those are the two things that i think one of those two things must be addressed and i urge the court rule well one of those two things must be addressed by the state consistent with your racial thing that maybe there might be an exception to that requirement but in my estimation the requirement should be met in every case less or some other pierce's ruling that two fifteen exemption issue and the judge said here in his ruling that the court previously noted that the threshold ordering implementation of a two fifteen examination is not a particularly high one simply then a third party has said that howard chopan ocker stated to her that tony was not my son those are the comments that are made those are the basis of drama i do believe however that the question comes as to good cause i don't believe that the general assembly or the courts have limited the examination should have a sibling after everybody has reached adulthood be allowed to come in and challenge the legitimacy of propriety she's never had an opportunity or a a reason to challenge th country where genetic testing was allowed to exclude a legitimate child as a person not a probably when you  your honor i cannot recall that's it your point this really those but the act goes on in a separate section three for two in any civil action not necessarily brought under that act that the provisions of the parity jack and the testing allowed there in the rebuttal of the presumption of legitimacy can apply and do apply to any other action civil action what section rate i believe forty five the dash nine says the circuit court shall have jurisdiction of an action brought under this act in any civil action not brought under this act the provisions of this actual apply of parenting is that ish that's what we have in this case but you're saying the rule as to who who may bring the action in the parent effect doesn't work what i'm saying is that the tasks that are excluded from raising that a separate issue when it's been litigated in a divorce i remember i would i would cite to the court department of public aid x relf start the wheeler to forty eight eelam thirty seven forty nine to the effect that you can argue that the illinois parity jack case law suggests that the children their parents in the illinois department of public aid are not encrypted with one another so the heritage proceedings initiated by one don't preclude the others from bringing later so we went through all this with but i remember in divorce cases years ago everybody was wondering what's going to be the effect of of all this modern d n a test and divorced he says oh i'm not the father i don't have to pay child support you can't do that you know there's a two year limit then they talk about the pulse you know it's wrong to raise the child support of a family and then years later say oh no you're not a child i think that is present in one or two of the cases cited by opposing counsel but what we have here is one generation beyond fore something about it in her will but that she said lineal descendant if she wanted to totally clarify she would have said anthony brandy and what in the world affidavit should be questioned i can question the same thing coming back from a mother of three children and there was a child born of her that was fathered by another individual she was still want all to his error there is a petition on file and there were orders granted to randy monitory to act as administrator but there is no determination by a board of court i do believe that the general assembly in an act in the attorney act did account for the new concepts of d n a testing i believe illinois case law court rule fifteen good cough i think the court is struggling with those affidavits i recognize but i do believe that you have to leave it to the discretion or i really feel that the discovery regulated under supreme court rule fifteen trial court has broad discretion to order a party to submit to a blood test let me ask you this a father that and in one case the deciders of pennsylvania case pennsylvania's dream court case where an individual who's married and five years after the birth of a child that he has shown his name on the birth certificate provide support he later comes to the court and says no it's not my child i think that was the basis of the pennsylvania supreme court we are going to allow that fin absolute control system isn't quite right there are other considerations besides the language of milton fifteen but in this case we are dealing with its work requirements father over the individual knowledge  descendants include adopted children but there is an exception on the stranger to the adoption in other words if our chopan operated on out and it stopped it a child twenty five years  that child adopted aged twenty five and had no prior relationship with our child that moment when you say by using the term lineal descendant she she wanted to exclude any illegitimate children oh it's marriage i don't think that's i'm i'm not saying illegitimate children of our i am sane lineal descendant howard now we are arguing that howard years before we even had d n a testing what was the sense of that language back then when we when the presumption of of legitimacy absolutely control i think when you repair and so that was the basis of part of our judges to the motions so i feel that the court did use its discretion by granting