not be lightly disregarded and they ought not be lightly terminated but when a man comes to a juvenile neglect proceeding and he is neither the child's biological father nor the child's adoptive father the state should have the ability to excuse him the state should have the ability to exclude him he should not have the right to participate in decisionmaking discussions consents to adoption regarding the child with whom he is unrelated and that conclusion is all the more certain in the case like this where the child herself acting through her garden supports the state's activity if the child will file a petition i mean did the jail file a petition in this case the g a o did not your honor but with respect to that your honor the jail certainly did support the state's motion when it was being argued and i should say we don't have in the record we don't know whether the g a o supported that prior to the motion be a filed or after but the one thing we are positive up is that in the circuit court the g a o argued forcefully in favor of a finding of not paternity and forcefully in favor of excluding the father from these proceedings in terms of whether we're trying to get him out of the box and that's not what this is about if there's if there's a parent child relationship if they've still cohabitate if there's a loving relationship none of that changes just by a finding of not paternity and the child  a right to say a legally recognized right to input into the process as opposed to i thought your honor was talking about the familiar with a ships and whether we're going to enter some sort of order but disturbs that if the gentleman wishes to have a legally recognized right but i suppose the question back to him is why not simply file for adoption if you file for adoption if a corner identifies you as somebody who is appropriate to adopt but then you have the weekly recognize right then you're able to participate in the child neglect proceeding but in india as we are and i should say by the way you know that's not the situation we have now but i understand your honour's asking hypotheticals for the broader issue right but you know one of the questions in this case is you know sort of  simplicity of the correction if the gentleman who signed that that wanted to have a legally recognized right he could simply go into court with the mother and adopt it does he need to do that like could we talk about the statute  statute itself the presumption of parentage you know forty five last five it is conclusive after the vamp assigned after there's been a judicial proceeding and that took place here it goes on to talking about two slightly different things here but the conclusiveness under the illinois parent teacher and the provision i believe in six be the parent eject the talks about has the force and effect of a judgment those are provisions that are binding we have sort of two different things happening here but we have the juvenile court act which is designed to entrust the safety of the child that's brought right it's physical safety it's emotional safety it's financial safety but then we hop over to the only parent to jack and today we see the parent jack as again doing a lot of things but one of the things that certainly isn't designed to do is to support child support orders as a as a function for child support orders and so if a gentleman comes in and he's signed the bat he's had sixty days in order to say well i want out if he doesn't do that then he's conclusively about it's a judgment he can't get out of that he can't come back three days or i mean three years later and say i change my right i'd rather not pay child support that all makes perfect sense right but in terms of him coming into the safety the physical safety the welfare safety forum of the juvenile court act why does his willingness to sign a back to be financially responsible necessarily translate into his ability to speak in the juvenile court about the future of that child because the statute says both the parent of jack and the juvenile court act provided parentage issues in juvenile court proceedings are governed by the parent said though that the hallmarks the talisman the central issue in all issues of child neglect is the best interest of the child and so if we find ourselves in the juvenile court and i suppose one the things you can say is that we are offered ways under the ill suppose this one of the questions is sort of looking here why not go ahead and file the terminations petition and we might as well just discuss that right now if i may be right and the question is whether it's really why should the state be required to do that why should the state recreated that sponsor three responses to that one and i know it sounds a little night to day but it's it's just not right why does the state need to pretend like it we're in a world where people are recognized to be the father because they're biologically a father or the father by adoption a state he percent pretend but the man who is neither has the right to a appear in the juvenile court proceeding and in fact i'm not entirely sure and the record doesn't talk about this but i mean you know i'm not entirely sure whether alfred would have been able to satisfy the adoption if you have somebody who is not able to adopt why would you say that man is able to give himself the rights of an adoptive parent by scientists that to the biological father that presumption could be overcome it's a presumption we have another presumption that if you go ahead and you voluntarily describe yourself as a father by signing of that that's a presumption that does not mean that you are the father and your honor it's what we're talking about is all the more a presumption that arises in the context of trying to secure child support payments why should that presumption why should that be conclusive against the state in the context with the state is trying to ensure the physical and emotional welfare and safety of the child and so we've suggested your honor and i suppose there's two other reasons behind it your honor is one of just go ahead and try me parental rights let's pretend that to it that's really what i'm trying to get you to under what section of the parentage statute the state have the standing to move to remove the father but the child certainly has the right to exclude move to disestablish the father everyone here agrees i believe i think all the parties agree that the child could have filed the petition even the court of appeals suggest  genetic testing determined that the father that the gentleman was not the father then he would be excluded no conclusive this no fly under arrest that he simply be excluded so if we're looking at the world the seven b you know what's the dispute here he is the state's attorney and only the state's attorney that gets to prosecute the petition for terminations parental rights in fact indeed yes as the court knows the guardian actually argued that he or she should have the ability to protect to petition in his or her own right and the court said no and there are two things really sort of fundamentally sound basis for that one in the particular world which is dealing with and with juvenile justice in the unique world of juvenile court actions right into the state that is the real party  well as the interests of the of the community and so very the ones who are given that responsibility they're the real party in interest to prosecute that case but second they're the sort of commonsense behind the rule is that the state needs to speak two quick responses but your honor with my time i don't want to slice it out too closely but close up me on that but at the hearing the state stipulated that it could not proceed it could not by under seven be as i understand it but that's not what we're talking about here what we're standing under sixty as well quickly sixty is a statute that that's really well suited for the state because it doesn't have any requirements as to who may or may not bring it in simply says that a bad may be challenged in court or based on a showin fraud mistake or directs and what we have here in this particular case is the circuit court actually made a finding that there was a mistake of fact and that finding is not against a manifest weight of the evidence what was presented to the court relations nicole saying that he had a reasonable basis for believing he was the father and the fact that says to the world i am the father and then in contrast we have d n a testing and as the crow knows the d n a testing established that the probability about his paternity was zer good morning your honors may please the court counsel i am diane pots seventy attorney general for child support and i am hearing today on behalf of the department of health care and family services which has been allowed to intervene in this appeal your honour's every year over forty three thousand acknowledgments of paternity are executed in illinois establishing parentage through the acknowledgement process has been an intra group part of the law in illinois and every other states since the mid hundred ninety s when congress mandated acknowledgment process for all states and their child support programs the knowledge one process of foreigns parents like alfredo a simple nontraditional method t embrace fatherhood and assume parental rights and responsibilities and in exchange for that they forego their right to biological certainty and genetic testing when the execute that acknowledgement with the child's mother there is no ambiguity as to the legal effect of ease acknowledgements both illinois and federal law provide that each acknowledgment if not timely rescinded establishes a legal father and child relationship that has the same force and effect as a judgment of parentage and cannot be ratified by any court after signing that acknowledgment the father's name is placed on the child's birth certificate by the department of public health and there is no longer any open question as to this child's paternity acknowledgements who are not unassailable they can be set aside by a court when requested by  biological fathers from coming forward again establishing themselves as the legal father for the child under section seven eight and section eleven of the parentage act the clear state of this law and not withstanding the is asking this court with boils down to is baby are asking for a broad unprecedented power to disregard acknowledgements in juvenile court proceedings and afford them no legal weight conducted genetic testing on legally established unmarried parents and if the test results show that the that legal father is not the biological father used that test alone to justify that father being expelled from the juvenile court proceedings and in essence one on that child's life now the state does not claim that this broad powers necessary because of the specific facts unique facts of this case nor can it at the very first court proceeding the state acknowledged alfred you are the legal father of and c yet without any explanation a few days later at the very next court proceeding the state demanded genetic testing on n c and alfred now the speech true motive for this genetic testing did not become apparent until their reply brief page one where they say the state does not want to expend services time and assistance in abuse and neglect cases on legal most important part as my answer to this question is that there's no evidence that the g a o wanted the genetic testing nor would have moved independently for the genetic testing there was no question raised by anyone the parents results came back excluding al fred but this case is so fundamentally important because it will dictate the procedure it was that the juvenile court for follow for other cases for other children for other legal parents products like alfred can do the right thing and assume those relationships voluntarily and seek to participate in their children's lives were quarreling the state too went big nice ballad parentage a  appeal but yes and i just want to question what's happened here in tennessee this morning that i am not aware of your honor i apologize on my co counsel however may be able to speak to the factual issues of what is currently going on in juvenile court but we know that alfred has been removed from the juvenile court proceedings and can no longer participate as a parent you know the broader west material mistake of fact elements of section time it was executed when you have a challenge under sixty and that's something that's going to belong to the parties themselves the parents themselves it doesn't belong to the state it doesn't belong to the state based upon genetics has so in alfred believed he was a c s father and established a legal parent child relationship he she could to new to be n c s father until the state takes the proper steps under the juvenile court act to terminate that relationship the conclusive nature of acknowledgements removes the question from the state's powers as far as who is the parent of and see any establishes for law and for the world decided that the state does not have standing in juvenile court proceedings thank you m know that it is that important at all that when there was a motion made by the state with respect to genetic testing that offer didn't object is that important i'm sorry to la has been no prejudice and contrary peter peter the x well well that i can't change the past but obviously the reality is that i suspect that i don't know why the father denied it object i don't have that information it may very well be that he did believe he was the father or that now would stand in fact that he was or was not the father who was prepared to carry out the duties which is  readily apparent this day and in answer to justice brooks question they're now married or were married at or about the time so this is the family unit we're talking about with respect to the guardian ad litum joining in on on the on the motion number one i don't know what considerations the guardian line was was employing whether she was even considering the best interest of the child certainly cannot of talk to the child given the infancy of the child spirit hard to ascertain what the motivation  then and so i can't speak for the guardian light of that what their motivation what point is it was not to jail file we may very well have asked for a child representative for a trial and that even anyhow mr miller just to follow up on justice thomas when was when was the first challenge to standing raised that basically at the at the point of the hearing on that what was the date of that where is it in the you know i don't know off the support but no other matters and it seems in concluded the legislature would limit the state's attorney if it could really do whatever it wanted in the best interest of the child in fact given some of the state's attorney's obligations to force child support children of between fathers the state's attorney cannot have it both ways they can't collect child support but seek to disqualify fathers from whom they wish to collect the child support the notion that section two thirteen six the juvenile court act either empowers or obligates the state's attorney to prosecute petitions to determine nonexistence of paternity misconstrue that section of the joint court act whether the state's attorney can prosecute a petition to the parents motions to take each healthcare orders most of them modify or protection this was a question probably would have been better raised from those pilots but in this particular case if we were to agree with you that the statute says what the set your said that typically there would be no standing but based on the fact that in this case the culprit did not object to the d n a test but in this case that the others but if we look there we would look at the financial issue well here's a father who could potentially provide financial support so we would we would look at why are you doing this on behalf of the child and and we would expect that to 're honest may pick up with just times question i think this court can write narrowly in this case and use the seven b option and say that the trial sixty the guardian lamb had standing even in the sense of agreeing with the state under sixty which is what this petition was brought under the government certainly would have had standing in the guardian in fact it did argue as well in the trial court that there was a mistake of fact  can you can agree with me that it couldn't possibly be that anybody could bring this no good but are you going to sort of present from the language of the statute how do we figure out who has standing under sixty which is what this motion was about parameters i think of the way we identify who has standing under sixty our people who have a legally recognized interest in the care and custody of the child now whether or not those people need to use sixty is a different question mothers have child who is presumably spending resources to care for the child has an ability to make a determination and if i might have her just a time to question good point correctly but what we're dealing with is a situation if this monster right n not the father by the circuit court and the circuit court found again right in the child's best interest to remove alfred and that alpha made a mistake fact that the state filed of i believe it was an oral motion made and almost into the court your honor asking th a complaint under section seven under section d six d i think it just refers to that bascomb a challenge in court based on fraud to rest on the sake of fact of course this court has jurispruden entirely your honor has made a visit but of a disadvantage i don't recall in six b six b if that's what your honor said requires a verified complaint as opposed to seven seventy seven eight was there an objection filed to them there was not your honor there were no written objections filed and to the best of my knowledge fact was funny and i believe the to the extent that any standing question was raised became of the first time three or at the oral argument i don't believe that there was any i don't believe i don't recall seeing any document file regarded standing to challenge and standing at the end of the day of the year on some just what i just want to make sure that we're sort of you know seeing the forest here if i m n we're talking about the juvenile neglect proceeding where the point of the proceeding is to try to attend a determined the child's ensure the child's best interest and  course if somebody appeared in that proceeding and wanted to offer an expert witness and the expert said why i don't know anything about the child i've never met the child i don't know anything about the child's well being don't know anything about the child's family situation not to make too much of a point but i'm homeless i have no job i don't know anything about this chop but i'm here to tell you what's in the child's best interest i'm here to testify i demand to be heard i situation which is in some sense and similar to that we have somebody and we heard essentially in the in the apple leaders argument that somebody can sign a vacuum give himself the rights of paternity stroke of the pen you're themselves the right sort of father with no court approving it not being biologically related it simply doesn't make sense and certainly when you're talking about the context of a proceeding that is trying to figure out whether the child's best interest is going to be taken care of and who are the adults that are best suited to do that are you seeing that in the best interest of the child could never be to have a father in the child's life was filed a map but it's not the that because he was not the biological father was not the best interest of the child to have him as a legal father it was now the best rich in the child to have been participating in a proceeding where he would somehow direct the future of that child's life th