trial court placed its reliance very strongly on the case of cross the cross and that is the point that the adoptive mother in  father mr della specifically bother was basically making the adoption for the sole purpose of making these children his heirs you know this is my twenty fourth here i've made it pretty clear and i think that people are understanding if there's an earlier decision that we're not required to file even if the same court we care to make an order saying you know not to say it was wrong what does it mean i believe that they did say that fable was wrong which i think they said was that faithful  ninety eight and there so they legislative amendment would not affect the holding him across or documents will i'm having trouble understanding how the legislation affected the holding across the something for the bill that we thought the cross subterfuge analysis was suggest the cross would still be good law the legislature centuries of bracing and would any of those legislative actions wouldn't doubt the cross case retrospective for him she lives written early because cross court ignored the  a good idea and they can make it the law but a court opinion can't be wrong because it is the wrong interpretation of the law but what the legislature would be doing when this when it was decided it ignored the fact that there was a new rebuttable presumption concerning instruments that have been written over to you so they ignored the lawless or case at that why it is different than anything else out there because it is a wholly regarding subterfuge making it a case in of itself it talks about that would apply to this very case i mean how many grandmothers get adopted we don't see a lot of that going around except for maybe something like this were to draw a line and it's easy with an adult what is here that yes you're looking at the motivation and the legislature has said nothing about looking at the motivation he needed to for here to for at so your knowledge under these facts there was suffer few what's wrong it is doesn't make any difference with that but doesn't explain why a cross is wrong or even state explicitly that we're choosing not to follow but it seemed to be fairly explicit to me your honor that they were choosing not to follow cross because half and therefore the presumption that follows two for he and two for he have that you are the child of the adoptive parents and therefore their followers and that must be rebutted by some evidence clear and convincing evidence and the court found none so they i think the legislation knew exactly what they were doing they like the idea behind the reasoning of prosody cross across the cross was wrong when it was decided because  they would've provided legislative support underpinnings to make it clear that the subterfuge or give it is now legislatively sound and that would have been a good idea is that what they did rely on the statutory amendment which is only a perspective but we can rely on the public policy expressed in cross which legislature affirm that subterfuge adoptions will not be allowed in the never reached that question in favor of because it was on a motion to dismiss it goes back and just like in the cross case they need to gather and present the evidence as to whether or not this is a subterfuge adoption one thing we don't know in the favor case is whether the adopting mother actually raise the stepchildren and that would be an two reasons cross to women first of our cost of empowered clear and convincing evidence the statute was amended after cross right across process finding is based on two different reasons the same as the fine in this case number one that we're not to put an exception on perceptor when the legislature has said here are the exceptions and in fact the child is the natural child except if it's shown by clear convincing evidence by the instrument itself and here there is a difference between free amendment cases and post amendment cases today we wouldn't even be here today because absolutely they would have they would be out there would be no question we would have to as it  that there was no basis to say that when you read the nine hundred ninety seven amendment is not undercutting the cross so if you're told it i think i think the legislature did want to make sure going forward should not be allowed but that ruling could not be made here in illinois because our legislature has expressed that public policy and again i refer back to that supreme court case which notes that the legislature is not  entity that can express the public policy of the state of illinois case law can do that as well when the legislature affirms a particular expression of public policy that is an ideal case and endorses it that's an indication that case later that night that may well be true but again i don't think you can infer from that that my what i'm saying is when the legislature enacted exceptions to the presumption that an adopted child is a natural child they set forth later in two four eight they made it only applied to instruments after one to ninety eight i don't think you can reach a conclusion unless you're willing to c your response to the two things number one is that there are two distinct reasons one is based on the statute one is a policy statutory  with very expressive a life then it can go out and choose his descendants by adult adoption and thereby leave remainder to his male partner or wife for ladies in their fifty's and we have given the life i'm not even suggesting that there was an intent here to exclude adopted children but i'm saying is that the intent was that that the life henry could just walk and pick anybody to to become his descendant which is again that's commonsense tell us when we get to that because common sense tells us that people don't adopt their roommates their cousins their wives i don't know my review the case all looks like there's a lot of that going on out there thank you revoke please the comment was made that you have to perhaps choose between the statute in the case law on the adoption i believe you have the power of the century and the statute has no exception