The appeals court agreed with the trial court. It looked at the FMLA instructions — i.e., the language of the statute and the regulations implementing it — and noted that they talk in terms of "care" of a family member, not "treatment" of a family member.In hard-to-argue-with language, the appeals court cut to the chase:If Beverly had sought leave to care for her mother in Chicago, her request would have fallen within the scope of the FMLA. So too if Sarah had lived in Las Vegas instead of with her daughter, and Beverly had requested leave to care for her mother there. Ultimately, other than a concern that a straightforward reading will "open the door to increased FMLA requests," the park district gives us no reason to treat the current scenario differently. Yet even if we credit the park district's policy concern, "desire for what we may consider a more sensible result cannot justify a judicial rewrite [of the FMLA]" [quoting another case].