primary legal issue to be determined is should a statute which has been in the acted to protect children of divorcing parties be allowed to be used by those children for whom it was an act under these circumstances we say the answer is yes the case law that already exists has established that when there's a miracle settlement agreements are clearly going to both child has agreement has never been signed you're correct justice so therefore nothing this involves and cation expenses for the children no ruling has been made all of i believe justice under the circumstances here when you apply the joinder statute or the intervention statute they had a case could be made for that which is what we believe is the case here are you saying that they do have a right to intervene provided there's a sufficient factual basis yes provided there's tell us what facts you hand write the facts in this case are they out first of all the father david has steadfastly denied any liability for college it's not a situation where he's saying well i don't know how much i can afford these are good boys they deserve this education not sure how much i should have to pay not sure how much mrs brandreth should have to pay but rather these kids hate me they are alienated it's mom's fault i don't have to pay anything i think those are just as very significant facts feeling insecure that my business that going to forge ahead and i think it's a relief that they think they are all titles quite frankly and my clients appreciate them multiple issues as i said college maintenance property debt attorneys fees and all that and it all remains pending we don't know dry is going to continue to go ahead and say these children should not have to pay for example since there are many issues ok a situation may come up she could give up the rights of a contribution because it's just one of these many issues for more maintenance or more property or contribution to fees or those sorts of thing again since  statute doesn't require that the representation is inadequate but is were may be made by itself looks prospectively to what could happen in the case ok i i may cut you off when you were expenses what are their facts are there that we were brought to the court's attention then we should consider the other facts are in fact both parties have alleged through the pleadings that my client's h financial resources now that kicks section five thirteen into gear because section five thirteen requires the court as relevant factors to determine the financial resources of the children so they at points the arrow as it were right at my clients to the aggrieved they at the trial court ultimately doesn't require either parent or both parents together to contribute one hundred percent then the essence is  order to my client saying you've got to pay the rest we're just saying before you do that before world order to pay money we should be partners we should be allowed to participate  court says orders are entered was pursuant to section five thirteen always modifiable so don't you have a flexible mechanism here there is there is nothing in place here that is jeopardized these young men at child it is in the nature of child support it's therefore modifiable but it's generally modifiable on a plan a change of circumstances now if there is no change of circumstances from the out which happens at the time of the trial there really isn't a basis to do that and you also have to do it now in a timely basis because the supreme court couple years ago in the peterson case sort of threw a wrench into all kinds of future powers planning by saying it's really a modification so if went through this justice because while we've stated though that it's an abuse of discretion in terms of the intervention and specter of it the cases have said that the court's discretion is limited which joint or intervention could have happened either the mandatory where the permissive the the question going back to section five thirteen now since as we've established there's not a miracle so much agreement does five thirteen itself provide the same standing without an agreement and we're talking about not bringing an mr burke cited about when there's a marital settlement agreement and why children are allowed in there because they're beneficiaries clearly and when you look at five thirteen i find it hard to imagine that the legislature net intend for the children to be beneficiaries number one because they're the sole reason five thirteen exists and secondly because it provides if the educational expenses may be payable directly to the child as well as under the circumstances to the school to the parent what have you so you have a statute that says you can pay directly to the child yet to me makes the children a direct beneficiary of the statute and it intervention is a case by case basis i believe under the facts of this case that intervention or joint or you know is proper really so what's the so so what's so unusual and unique in this particular case thirty years i don't think well i practice for the furthest now thirty three years i appreciate better but normally i mean my experience has been they'll say what i can pay a certain degree i don't know how much judge you decide they don't exigency is that they are going in that a determination is going to be made in the trial court using the factors using statutory factors that affect them such as their resources such as their academic performance all those things and they're not going to be allowed to participate they could be called as witnesses by either of the parties nothing stops they act so if they're going to be brought in the anyway why shouldn't they simply be party since simply have a voice and an opportunity they would have had it when they were minors section five zero six now it has been amended since all of this case law that had come out in ninety seven and ninety nine to allow for representation of the children these are minor children whenever the issue of support or their property or educational expenses come out and that's to me is a very important public policy the terminations by the legislature and you cannot have a statute that benefits these people and then they lose it when they turn eighteen even though there is another statute that is really a bridge it's five thirteen is the bridge from the child support statute it's  show that she says she has as of of now she's filed the motion that's right but again looking to the statute as to whether it may be a and again i have to do some somewhat my job as the children's attorney here i don't how do i know that at some point she might let's say claim a privilege what i don't know mental health privilege attorney client privilege or something like better a trial court says ok we know the law on this you can claim your privilege but you can't use it as a sword instead of a shield and you can't pursue certain things such as this motion in the motion may drop off and as i said the motion could drop off for a million what we're looking at we're not looking at the modification we're saying it's minors or yes that's what five thirteen provides it's an important and that every state has this there was of it a very important part of the marriage act from the data f rom the date of the first petition so it it so it has to be done has triggered three it it well it has because well we're seeking to mrs vendrell has filed a petition and we are seeking to come in and participate in bed as well and ask for whatever relief the court might grant us if we are granted a party status which will move the door which wouldn't move this we need to be parties once for parties then we can deal with it we can ask for relief under section five thirteen what evidence if any to do these adult children show the trial or know that my mom was an addict with fully representing so so situated to be adversely affected by disposition of property subject to control the court that's a separate i'm interested in helping your physicians and i think you would then help your position if you could identify  identify to me what an adequate c s mile has shown and representing these children these don't children's interests she has her own interests is the problem as i said she's filed the motion so far they it's great that's all we have so far there is so much to go in the case it's why i chose this i'm relying on the language you know we're maybe bound by an order representation is or maybe in a haddock with we know clearly father's representation is going to is strongly adverse and you know that they need a voice the court needs to hear from them as to certainly again dickless and michael or extremely grateful for this opportunity of the workers as provided they believe is i do this is an important issue and they respectfully crave this court as it were illusion of marriage act and contrary to the statements made by opponents attorney in his brief the court has no jurisdiction over funds set aside for educational purposes of the children i would divorce court cannot order the use of those funds towards any educational expenses the court can however consider the existence of those funds in determining whether they should enter an order relative to both parties relative to the contribution toward the education  court has no right to deal specifically with any of those funds also the children of the parties to a dissolution of marriage matter absent a contractual obligation under the law have no standing to intervene in  dissolution of marriage preceded they have no rights to enforce and therefore they have no standing the case was quite clear and i've said it's a spear cough to miller cases a third district and a first district i cited or they say in fact in the in the third district miller case is an interesting language the issue was whether a child of the voice parents had standing to bring a suit under the illinois marriage of the solution of marriage act to compel compel his  that anyone other than the one in one of the parties can petition the court for relief available under the act which is the situation we have here to pursue contribution for for their own college expenses in your case the issue was a merrill settlement room which specifically required the father to contribute to the son's college education the court found a dead case as a result of the marital settlement agreement a contract between the parties the child had standing to pursue this issue only as a third party beneficiary that's a  contractual status therefore stated it's because of a third party who is the direct beneficiary of a contract the marital settlement agreement yes the ending to enforce the obligation  for his benefit incurred under that contract conversely then if there is no contract there cannot be a third party beneficiary if there is no third party beneficiary under under  a balancing act that has to be done here and i plan on going into that argument relative to the the the problems that would be quiet as in my belief if in fact we we change things and allow children to be involved i can go right to that if in response to your question appellant acknowledges in his brief that allowing adult children to intervene in their parents divorce case could quote lead to bitter disputes and of quote but he says allowing the children intervene doesn't mean anything ever every child will i've been practicing divorce law for fifty years fifty years of divorce law i seen every aspect of it and i've seen the bitterness the bitterness that develops and the bitterness that  children are taught to feel toward one of the parents if the opportunity is if the door is open for children to intervene in  proceeding there will be if the floodgates will be open and there's no doubt in my mind that would happen we'd start with maybe educational expenses then we're talking talking about child support situations and in virtually every case or ninety percent of the cases have children involved there child support issues and the same argument could be made that that that the amount of child support my father or my father whoever the custodial parent is receives will directly benefit the child obviously and therefore i want to intervene and we will have mothers or fathers of whatever the social parent encouraging the children or in most in most cases paying for representation there to make it into a total three ring circus we have a three ring circus here and i think the court and examine the record can see that we have the mother in law who has filed suit against the against the father in this case for monies that he and that was consolidated into the case right away and within thirty days of that forty days something that nature the petition to intervene was filed so now we're going to have three generations of this family into this what i call the three ring circus and what it's become and and the children have their antagonistic toward the father that's not the reason and that the father wants these issues to be appropriately determined by the court he still loves his children the children each have substantial amounts of money set aside for purposes of education one has about one hundred twenty five two hundred thirty thousand dollars the other has somewhere that's that's a good question because there's substantial issues there are some say it's gramma that's it's grandma says that in and she's part of these proceedings the wife says it's for funds that she may have received from gramma and my client says some of it may have come from grandma some of it make it come from my wife's earnings but a good portion of it may have come from ironically the point is that these funds were set aside for college purposes and these children have substantial amounts of money the husband's situation is one with the distribution of assets who knows who's going to get what it's it's it's this is not a case that can under any circumstances settle unfortunately when it's it's it's a disaster situation and and the the bitterness and the attack it isn't that is created particularly toward the father by the by the by the children now is is is to the point where that relationship i i i just hope time will solve it but time is not going to solve it if they continue to litigate and if they litigate directly with their parents the fact is getting back to the other issues involved the the appellate states that there is no reason that the children cannot be adjudicated direct beneficiaries under the act and there is a reason the illinois marriage and dissolution of marriage act doesn't make them direct beneficiaries it basically gives no rights to anybody other than the husband and the wife it creates no obligations other than that of the husband or the wife and it has no authority to extend that direct obligation or benefits to anybody other than the husband and the wife the only way that that this effect could be change to make them direct beneficiaries i guess if if the court could rule or if the legislature specifically provides for it and if five or six i don't believe that's what they did they gave the right at this question mary right because they they spoke in mind of the court may order may may do this and may mean you know may make the order for an appointment of a of an attorney to represent the the children in a certain issue but it doesn't that but what it doesn't do is give any substantive rights under that act to any third parties including the children no substantive a act it's a procedural thing of appointment but unless there is something substantive that they have a right to get under the act then then discretion but you know my argument is that it it can conceivably but be both i think the court ruled on the basis of my what my position is basically and standing that they have no standing they're not the party beneficiaries there's no contractual obligation that so they basically have no standing to come into the case i believe the quote ruled on that basis i think the court considered the the bag of worms that would be created by  an order that they had kind of opened a door to every kid getting a lawyer and house generally these kids if they're minors or if they're if they're college age going to get money to put together to hire a lawyer without the assistance of one of the parents who is that embittered against the other and that just dealt with those issues and however in doing so they denied it and done denying  it one could interpret it also as well that that that they exercise their discretion by saying that it was this is just not a good idea and to do that might cause tremendous tremendous problems in the future with all the other thousands of cases that are pending it just just imagine what could happen if it's quite an and i can't imagine that it won't with with the lawyers will make a lot of money because they hope to get an additional lawyer for every one of the divorce cases filed and not only that but but the cases will then become real better and they'll be more contested than there ever was and maybe i'm a naysayer and looking bad at the future but you know based upon my experience  realistically see that happening and i don't see anything else but that happening if if things just get opened up and they have quite the section five thirteen of the act  doesn't grant any substantive rights to to the children it's just said it says that the court can consider the extent of their their own assets but you know in most insolation these these assets came from contributions of the parents of the so so contributions have been made already through the assets that are set aside for college education expenses i just perceive this as bitterness of of of  the wife to attempt to get him any way she passively can i mean that's the reality of the situation and in doing so we're going to alienate everybody against him starting with her mother and now and now we've got and all this happened with a relatively short period of time and now we've got the same thing brought by she's he's got his children wanting to basically sue him i mean the whole thing collapsed there i think that's the basis of it i think the court could rule on the the matter of this question or the end or the end i think most importantly should rule on the base is that the children basically have no rights relative to the divorce proceeding none whatsoever they may benefit have some benefit in a cruise from that it's possible but but that doesn't create rights according to according to five thirteen it says the court may make provision for the educational expenses of the child or children of the parties whether of minor or majority age which sums and maybe ordered payable to the child which has to be enforced is written that's what we're saying the trial court didn't do they have sufficient interest because five thirteen grand somebody out right they have the right to have representation in the floor they were minors and it shouldn't it shouldn't then now and i want to say as to what mr burke says about this opening the floodgates two things number one the bhangra family service is apparently open he says it's three rings it's pretty bad maybe sell another ring isn't going to make this case any worse when there were already allegations made the children hate me etc i'm concerned about the rights of these children i'm not as concerned a child representative appointed this is the same thing so the children produce doesn't seem to bother the courts in this case having three lawyers instead of two for basically every custody case there's no reason that this should when right and i vehemently disagree with what he said about well the court doesn't have the power to make them pay their own money it's basic common sense if the court only orders the pete the parents to pay fifty percent who else is going to pay those fifty percent gift to the child why should they have to use all of their money that's why they need there's nobody you know giving it their side of the story that's right my clients need to be in to explain maybe why at first blush there is money there but why should why should they have to pay for all of their college they may have other needs so yes council stated i think each already sort of has their own as it came out everybody says it came from them which is part of what's going to have to happen at the trial and again another reason we need to take it to the product or we get to esk our own questions and find these things out because they're going to be relevant because it's just the simon said this is it's not mandatory it's permissive it's not an automatic parents are going to pay the rent like guidelines like for child support it's not going to be parents are going to pay x percent it has to be litigated we need the rights of a party and what counsel said about he cited for example that nowhere case which was a third district case of twenty five years ago before the amendments to section five zero six and again not a jointer case nonintervention case none of these cases that have come out addressed both of those statutes but as i have done and it has to be look you can text of the best interests of the children that's what we're supposed to be supported or counsel has already conceded so this case is not going to settle so there's not going to be a settlement agreement so based on what he says there can be no party right my client shouldn't be prejudiced because his parents can't come to an agreement to bring it under those cases and that's all i have just this is a great league and appreciate all those t