reviewing the transcript roasted granted a dismissal as a voluntary one of his comments was the moving can dismiss for no other reason than a change in the court trial  l mr lee in in its reply to the memorandum concerning the child representatives representation of the child clearly stated that the child should be afforded the opportunity to a petition to declare the non existence of a parent child relationship there are two separate actions and he was moving forward on a petition to establish the area child  child has standing to bring a petition at any point within two years of attaining the age of majority while a parent would be limited up until the age parties or their previous which we certainly have in this case and i don't you are the cause of action which we certainly have in this case and a judgment on the merits and when we get to the judgment on the merits of voluntary dismissal it's not a judgment determining what whether the dismissal would be six fifteen or six nineteen in this case quite clear that the parties intended this to be a voluntary dismiss unequivocal statements by a party about a concrete fact within the party's knowledge mike's position that he had a should be afforded the right to refile on attaining the age of eighteen would seem to follow with then a deliberate considerations is whether the parties seeking to and seeking the protection of the document res granted the motion of the child representative but on the grounds of voluntary if the child representative moves to voluntarily to involuntarily dismiss the petition filed on behalf of the child we can issue an area where it's on charter territory that the child my name is susan butler and they represent happily michael egan my job today is to provide you with a rationale for firming the decision of judge wilson and i'm pleased to say that i believe there's a simple and straight forward path for you to do  canon three hannah's mother susan buchanan filed eight petition to determine the existence of the father child relationship the nonexistence of father child relation ship and child related issues she sought to hannah for all of her fifteen years at that time in that context the child representative filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the petition with bart by the statute of limitations the tra granted that motion to dismiss supreme court rule two seventy three provides that an involuntary dismissal of an action other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue or for failure to join actually decided in the first action and those which could have been decided in that action and that case was a petition to disestablish james buchanan to establish michael egan so clearly to declare the existence or nonexistence of a parent child relationship had to be brought in the name of the child by a guardian parent guardian ad litum or still be in the action could not be brought in the child's name action to declare the existence or the nonexistence of a parent child relationship had to be brought by a guardian parent g a o l or custodian the action could not be brought in the child's own name an and to establish parentage in a in a new person in two thousand and fifteen and yes and what's really important for you to read member  child representative but that action was i think very clearly in voluntarily not voluntarily dismissed it was dismissed pursuant to the language of the child representatives motion to dismiss which clearly was brought and stated that the action should be dismissed because it was barred by the statute of limitations that's a six nineteen involuntary dismissal and there was no  case appellant complains that the trial judge did not specifically state in the dismissal order that the basis for the dismissal was the statute of limitations bar or a bar under six nineteen under some other affirmative matter but we all know that you may have firm on any proper basis in the record and it's abundantly clear when you read the motion that it was brought under six nineteen even  didn't state that it was brought under six nineteen alleging that their case was barred by the statute of limitations consul talked about a duty to make the was clearly an ever seriously ill involuntary dismissal on the part of the child representative as i said it is been established that there was an intense conflict between mother and daughter at that it and the owner granting it on its face the motion to dismiss stated that it that it was being abroad because the statute of limitations barred this action so even though the child representative didn't  section six nineteen it was clear that this was a motion and calling for an involuntary dismissal and who brought it it was brought by a child representative representing a child whose interest had been determined by the trial judge to be divergent from it and in intense conflict with her mother so elder just simply granted the motion to dismiss we can take all that in the context and assume and i think rightly so that there was for doubt this was an involuntary dismissal the order did not seek it was in the right to refile it didn't say anything about any additional action the case was merely dismissed and there was no appeal when we left the court room that day there was nothing no stipulation no agreement no clear orders stating anything about anybody's rights or refile  refile she also stated clearly a record and i would not have the opportunity to file in the future to try to disestablish the parentage of her  to our brief james buchanan was interviewed by the guardian ad litem he told of his strong deep love and bond with his daughter he would he talk that he would never do anything to destroy that father daughter relationship with could on the contention that in a reply pleading of arson in the prior case i think you that there was a educational admission that hannah would be entitled to refile that is absolutely not the case first of all i'd like you to know that that document that reply document that supposedly contains in agreement or the record in hue can a three and a half not the record here has not been a couple minutes with that document so i don't think you should be able to rely on it that even if it were properly before you and you did because she on the record stated hannah will not have the ability to refile to disestablish james after she attained adult age so i think in my brief i fully covered that thank you there was a question about what james thoughts work at the trial level and we submitted a transcript of this hearing on july twenty fifth two thousand and twelve eleven of three sixty nine james  rock possible potential relationship is something i don't want i mean who is to say that that happens you know that could a relationship forever without there ever being a chance to establish i think that if it's really in her best interest she wants to have a relationship with him and i certainly wouldn't want to try to stop it i think they should have a relationship if that's the case but that's all i want to get your point my point being that who she is and it's been after a number of years when the case was dismissed and eleven f three sixty nine i'll go back to the trial court treated it as a