approaching a case this court has said repeatedly in cases that the story wait for everything the courts of illinois do with regard to children in court my contention would be that the essential point is that there still has to be an evaluation of best interests and with of father already having acted as the parent yet here you have a situation where not only do you have a father who has served father has had his rights acknowledged and wishes to continue to do so but the biological father is deceased i understand counsel th contention on whether best interests apply or not but is it a little odd to be arguing that in this case where the child was neglected for the first three weeks of his life until the c f c the c f s remove the child from the the jails as the representatives of the parents do start with the belief that we're acting on behalf of the kids to make sure they're so his presence in the home in those early weeks of this child's life of was limited you know the mother is a person who needed services and that's the point we were out with this action took place with the this this issue about the determination of the father child relationship is has been caught by public policy has been copied in the statutes and your room for that doesn't talk about the statutory scheme argument as to how you are reading in the idea concept of the best interests of the child kind before the statutory structure of a hearing first on this  argue that it's implicit that that's the story in this case i'm sure it's clear from one brief that we have literally a life father who is the best interest steps must be taken and that has to be the guiding point of the judge who's considering the case but again my argument would be before that as the but because we don't have that you would fall back to the certainly on the general concept of court acting with best interest of the child you know are you saying that there's constitutional protection for him  that there was an obligation by the v l to look at best interests we have the knowledge that the biological father's to ceased we have  father is someone in a position to be able to him to want to care for this child with the biological mother and that and that circumstance the proper course and they are making their best interests final from the beginning will lead to this heroic situation where the a p s are frequently the statutory construction so what kind of hearing are you would you suggest is required under section seven b and actually declare the nonexistence of the parent child relationship that may be brought by the child but what kind of evidence you think would be the court should review to determine whether or not there should he should the trial court here should have not declared non existence of parent relationship or the existence of the parent relationship and in light of the scenario would be a child who chooses to  presenting clear convincing evidence that another man is his or her biological father is not the child's burden at that initial stage to prove to the judge that it is in the child's best interest to grant the child's petition disestablish and the section seven does not provide for a best interest analysis and that then once the heritage ruling is made under section fourteen the court considers what effect that ruling will have on the child's life with respect to matters of custody guardianship and visitation and in that analysis the court does take into account the best interests of the child in that analysis the best interest of the child is paramount in this court court correctly ruled that before the best interests of the child standard can be applied to determine a parent's rights the party must first be a parent and this court has recognized the plain language of the parentage act and the existence of that require a best interest analysis prior to a determination of parentage and noted that under section fourteen of the act after parenthood as the term and then the parental rights are determined based on the best interest of the child this court further held that that  statutory framework was not facially unconstitutional and in the j f k case this court rejected the argument that legal recognition of a parentage petitioner would disrupt the child's life noting that under section fourteen the involvement of that man in the child's life would be would turn on the back what was in the best interests of the child the response states that questions of custody must mean that the court must consider the best interests of the child it is that second stage where are the best interest of the child are considered in matters of custody the respondent states that that d n a evidence should not be used to determine parental rights but as writers have noted there's a difference between rental rights and heritage and this court is repeatedly noted that first parentage is the term and then parental rights are determined in the best interest of the child  interests of the child and then the court in barks in the second stage inquiry a separate inquiry into whether terminations of the rights of an unfit parent is in the child's best interest the legislature adopted a similar framework determined based on what's in the child's best interest and that's contrary to the plain language of the stack here and principles of statutory interpretation section two of the parentage act defines the parent and child relationship as the legal relationship existing between a child and his or her natural or adoptive parents section five parent jack states that a man who signs of voluntary knowledge and parenthood is presumed to be the natural father of the child and section seven provides for actions to declare the nonexistence of the parent and child relationship and again that relationship defined as the natural parenthood under section two so it would be absurd to link the identity of the child's natural father to a best interest analysis that may or may not favor the natural father can adding that best interests analysis to sections have been proceedings would be counter to the principle that the court should not read into the statute exceptions or limitations  protected rental rights and invokes concept of due process and equal protection it's important to note that respondent is not actually mounting a constitutional challenge to the parentage act nor is he asking this court to revisit or overturn the john m case in which this court held that it was not facially unconstitutional for the parentage act to not require it that's been here said else s in a section seven respondent stated that the circuit court exalted the rights of the natural father over over him but really the court exalted orkut honored the request of the child to his natural parents and the appellate court noted that establishment of awkward age in this case as the child's natural parent should mean that the child would be able to receive social security survivor benefits from the from his natural parent he's entitled to those benefits and the policy animating the parent you jack should guarantee that he gets them the responding also stated that he wants to care for child with the child's mother i believe that the record reflects that the respondent at least when the record was created last year that the respondent and the mother are no longer together but the responding presenting that best interest claim is is presenting an analysis that wouldn't come into effect until the second stage the second under section fourteen and one final note is that this court in the john m case in d constitutional challenge to the parent attack noted that generally when a best interests hearing is required part of some action it is for the protection of the child and the court in this case in that case criticize the  father's invocation and use that the best and first standard for it to advance his own interests in that case and this case presents similar facts as in john the presumed father is invoking this best interest standard here not as a shield but as a sword not as a shield to protect the child's interests but as a sword to attack the child's attempt to establish his natural heritage who the parents are matthew was replated from participating in your brother's upright i'm sorry specific matthew is precluded from participating in what would then be the second portion the best interest of the child custody parent scenario happens if that's also of following up and just commerce question who would have standing in that best interest hearing would foster parents have standing if the child had been portion i'm not sure that that section fourteen states who may participate in in the hearing i'm sure the judge could hear evidence on any on any issue pertaining to the distinction is that he hit a father in that case literally had no legal standing no that he never took the steps to adopt he being someone with legal rights worse the child legal responsibilities first child when this case started matthew way now the rights responsibilities of father when this case left the service were jefferson that's years down the road and certainly in this case we have interviewers the grandparents of harrison ford age who have stepped in and wish to preserve their interest and say we want to relationship with this child i think ultimately we want to be the character of this child and again i don't believe that initially senses as prayers they have a legal basis to step in the media at least it could be right down is what are we doing with this child and i know it happens probably hundreds of times every day worse throughout the state and that's this great court's responsibility to say this is how we do this interest of the child we're not involved in a court and all that is is that in the best interest to determine who the parents actually are origin of the best interest to say let's leave it alone and not find out because of the trials ok or here she has that seems like the it is on the jail the care there were even though i doubt it's his choice but because his choice is founded in their best interest concept when he chooses to  s responsibility usurping the judge's decision isn't the jail's response jail's responsibility to bring all the facts that it's possible to the judge so the judge can make a determination whether there should be a d excused at this time