So, you know, again, you can understand the intent of having the age and the maturity of the child taken into account to the extent that the lawyer must explain proceedings to them. Again, I don't think anyone would disagree. Again, I would say—actually, I would go further than to say that that would be a matter of common sense; I would say that's already a matter of ethical obligation. I think that it's clear that any lawyer who fails to keep the child involved to the extent that is appropriate would be failing in their duty. So that's non-controversial, as far as it goes, but it also doesn't do anything really to solve the practical problem of how a child's interests are best served.