and not per capita.” Leoma and Ruth Ann direct the court to the maxim that states, “In construing either a trust or a will[,] the challenge is to find the settlor’s or testator’s intent and, provided that the intention is not against public policy, to give it effect.” Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Beach, 118 Ill. 2d 1, 3, 513 N.E.2d 833, 834 (1987). To discern the testator’s intent, courts may analyze both “the words used in the instrument and the circumstances under which they were drafted.” Harris, 118 Ill. 2d at 3-4, 513 N.E.2d at 834. The statutory presumption contained in section 2 — 4(f), however, represented a dramatic shift in public policy to construe written instruments in favor of adoptees. See Wielert v. Larson, 84 Ill. App. 3d 151, 153, 404 N.E.2d 1111, 1113 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The court in Wielert did find that the terms
holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that  issue of the body  in a 1959 will was insufficient to evince clear intent to exclude adoptees from inheriting under the will holding that a writ of mandamus will not issue under  1361 unless the defendant is under a clear nondiscretionary duty to perform the act requested