Howard and Ruth created an irrevocable trust in full settlement of Howard's support obligations to Ruth. Ruth was to have a life estate in the net income of the trust assets and that, upon Ruth's death, the net income of the trust was to be distributed among the then-living children of Howard and Ruth. The trust also provided for a per stirpes distribution to the issue of any child of Howard and Ruth who pre-deceased Ruth. Upon the death of the 'last survivor' of Howard and Ruth's children, the trust was to be divided equally among the 'then living' grandchildren of Howard and Ruth with the issue of any then deceased grandchild taking per stirpes its deceased parent's share. When the trust was created, they had four living children. Howard died in 1988. Ruth died on September 2, 1996. Ruth was survived by three of her children. One child had died before either one of her parents in 1964, leaving three children. On March 4, 1997, the surviving children, Ps, filed a petition requesting the superior court to construe the 1961 trust agreement and give direction to the trustee with regard to its obligations under the agreement. The court-appointed D as guardian ad litem, to protect the interests of the unrepresented descendants of Howard and Ruth. The surviving children then filed a written instrument seeking renunciation, release, and termination in full of their interests in the trust. The court ordered the trustee to distribute the trust to the then-living 13 grandchildren. The court reached that decision after concluding (1) that there was no language in the trust agreement which indicated an intent to prohibit acceleration; and (2) that the renunciation of the childrens' interests in the trust produced the same result as if they had predeceased Ruth. D appealed. D asserts that the trust agreement indicates an intent on the part of Howard and Ruth to prohibit acceleration of the trust.