does support dismissal of the father in this particular case and under the facts of the case the application of the statute violate the constitution in regards to both the equal protection clause in the due process as regards the sarah sarah does have the same last name as my client stephen and sarah lived together soon after her birth when she was born he was in the county jail in peoria upon his release he didn't live with his daughter they lived together for a couple of months the mother the father in the child at that point in time is when they sign this agreement that was notarized to give custody of the child to the mother he'll frankly no i was not aware of it until we actually had the hearing that came out at the hearing that was not part of the record in the trial court or the record on the deal so how can we  think both parties acknowledge or agree under oath that they signed a document that i call or man's custody agreement they didn't have the funds to hire an attorney but they did try and do what they could to formalize some sort of a document that it was temporary guardianship what happened i believe was the c f s had come into the trailer where the mother in the father were living there were some concerns about the child staying in that residence and what the parents agreed to do with that time was to transfer the child to an other adult which happened to be the mother's i think rather and they signed a document they put it together they took it to the bank and that what it did was it acknowledged them both of them said that he was a father he was the mother and  they notarized it and took it in and then they provided it to the brother so he had a document saying that this is the this is that the child i have i have permission to have that and it's not the statutory here yes exactly but it is an acknowledged written acknowledgment of paternity and i think under the facts of this case that should be enough to keep my client from being dismissed from the i think that's a fair assessment i mean it's there's another provision under the act that allows there's some exceptions to signing the putative father of a stream when a person can keep their job and one of the exceptions which was argued in front of the court register if you maintain substantial in continuous support is what the statute provides but then there's also a provision which is which is important in this case that then as far as a contact the considers visiting at least monthly would not prevent him from doing so and in this case we have a couple of different factors preventing the doing so as a child gets a little older in particular what happens is after the agreement is signed in the child goes in with the brother and his family they do take the child back in again the mother and the father and they live for about a year together as a family one more time after this or my client goes back into the system  he's in the prison this time as opposed to jail by the time he's released from jail when he's in jail he has no control over his contact as far as ability to be there for the child after he gets out of jail there's an order of protection in place against him he even him from having contact with the mother in the child in that order of protection ironically is in place because the father was in the mother's work trying to maintain too much contact when he was in the halfway house by continuing to call her and t letter that includes language saying that but i believe that if you read the entire letter and when the mother was asked about it the flavor of the letter is i want to be back with you i want to be back with you my child why don't you let me in your life s he was released initially in may of zero five which was a month after the child was born he went back into the prison i believe it was in november of zero seven and then he read he was in prison until the end of two well till two thousand and nine and believe it was again the end of the year in two thousand i know i don't have at the top my head when he was released at that time he was released i believe to a half way house and the county and at that time was when the order of protection was in place i keep in him from contacting and there wasn't testimony i believe in the trial court about allegations of him trying to get around that order of protection by having third parties try and contact the mother and that there was issues with that that was not a big part of the testimony but i believe there was some testimony about that about continuing trying to contact and being told not to and then he was back in the system again and i forgive me i don't remember exactly when he went back in believe that well that's true but that was when they were living together i mean but i was thinking more into me i no i don't believe i don't believe that is the way the facts came into play in this case i think that he was willing to  notice to potential fathers of the act and in this particular case i'm the mother of the father most agree who the father is he was provided all this he entered into the case and then he got dismissed because he didn't sign the regist so i think when you interpret the statute you look at the expressed purpose of it and it doesn't seem like it really has anything to do with this particular case now as far as the other argument we have is if you look at the actual statu group in regards to some part aged it talks about what the what happens in regards to the failure to sign on the puter father registry and in that particular provision it states that the failure to sign is prima facie evidence of sufficient grounds to support terminations anytime we have that as well as we know that means that's going to pretty present a presumption that you usually get a right to rebuff and this particular case he's not getting a right to  it but there's a presumption and then boom he's kicked out of the case that doesn't seem to make sense in the context of this case we have a father that's involved in the case and that everybody agrees is the father i think that the all you can sign the registry and then the judge found that he had not met any of the registry exceptions that's true but i also think that the whole basis for i mean if he had signed the registry he'd still be in this case he didn't sign the registry he's kicked out ok so i understand the argument you're making but i mean if you would have signed he'd still be in when none of those places would make any difference he's essentially dismissed because he didn't sign the registry and then he didn't fit into one of the pigeon hole which sidesteps us into the next arguments which are the constitutional arguments if the court were to find hey if you expressly provide that statute he should have been dismissed then under the facts of this case the statutes unconstitutional she must withstand strict scrutiny spic scrutiny and there's no presumption of constitutionality and in this case if you look in switch the places of it if you had a mother who had a child and the mother had absolutely no contact as opposed to the limited contact we talked about in this case but the mother is in and out of prison gives a child to somebody else out as soon as a child is born but the other is no  again in the constitutional context you look at the lurk ace and there is a difference just being father does not necessarily mean your father for constitutional protection but there is if you have some contact with that child if you do some some relationship with the type of child then you do have a significant liberty interest that can't be broken up by due process process caused by the failure to sign what is really striking relationship here ok what i'm claiming is they lived together for a couple of months right after the child was born after that it was testified to by both the parents that he would go and visit with the child when the child was staying with the mother's brother although there was no disputing the testimony about how we interacted at that there was no specific finding on the conflicting versions of that but there was a specific finding that the trial court would side with mother uncontested issues of fact based upon the letters that were put into the record in my client admitted i believe there were four different letters put into the record my client admitted to this to writing two of them he did not admit to writing to the other ones the trial court said that you know i think you wrote all four of these if you're going to lie to me about basically which letters yes no i think that you can make these findings based on the can be agreed to or stipulated facts that he did go and see the child during the time that it was with the brother and i think there's also agreed to testimony that they lived together after the child was given back from the brother to the to the mother and the father and they lived together for another year or so after that so there is a relationship here now he went in the prison he was not there one is in prison with the family and when he got out of prison he did have an order of protection against him it would be a much better case of people lived with them the entire time from my side of the aisle but we have the facts that we do have and i do think there is that i think a basis for germination would be abandoned but in this case in the sense they kicked him out of the game without even having a terminations hearing for failing to sign the putative father don't as far as the imprisonment or a felony i don't i don't believe in forgive me if i'm mistaken on this but i don't think either one of those is a basis by itself that his rights would be terminated  because he's been in prison i think that the the fact that he has not paid support i believe that is a factor that goes into it i think that the  the the issues included at least with what we had in regards to the putative father registry the ability to have funds to pay for the support and again there is not a lot of ability that's in the record in regards to what he was doing or what he had for income but i don't i don't think that just because he's been in prison and hasn't paid under these circumstances is grounds by itself to have a terminations where you're supposed to have terminations by clear and convincing evidence in this case is disputed evidence and it's essentially the basis of not sign a registry that he's not even entitle to the terminations here  little bit you know is this the man that we want to postpone the adoption or is this somebody who has maintained repeated and continuous interaction with china and india even assuming all the  to get around the filing of the the registry and again i think if you look at the constitutional cases there is some relationship here and i think that he falls into the part that he has a protected interest and with that i think that he's  responsibility for very changes suggested is required in the layer case he does not have a relationship with the child what mr wrenn is called relationship was a period of brown seventeen to nineteen months when the child was between the eight and was just born and the age of around two and a half there has been no communication with the child from the bother to the child according to the mother and that was what the court said it is true since november early december of two thousand and seven  relationship we all know the cliche of be an involved father who until the child is feisty x seven a potty trained and so forth then takes an active interest in the child and this mother described this relationship and you have  i mean i know the last letter that was attributed to him was in two thousand and three that the order of protection go into effect until november two thousand and nine was there any written correspondence from prison going to those letters mr brown i believe argues that he mr stephen a has made a full commitment to fatherhood and he has a relationship with the child and i dread due to the evidence of the letters of nurse who made a full commitment to the rule to his relationship with him with the child what he said was if you take up with another man if you get involved with someone else i'm going to abandon the child hate you for taking up with another man but i will never abandon my relationship with syria and i will always be there as her father in poor her he did not that does not this show a step lease relationship or does it show a commitment to turning your right i really have nothing further to say we don't believe this man has ever demonstrated any internal the issue about the letters it's my understanding and i'm in front of the screaming in the record oh i'm the mother rock records are brought the letters and put them into the record i believe there was testimony my client wrote letters like every other day to her and i believe that was testimony of my client i don't think that the mother testified about that or said that there were just letters every other day i do statute there that they have it in they call it an acknowledgment of paternity of one time or another time they say an acknowledgement of paternity as under the vital records act or as under one of the other acts are cited in the c section decide each other ok we will be taking the matter under advisement and rendering the decision without undue delay because we do recognize this involves a minor in some pretty substantial rental rights as well but now we'll take a short recess for panel