circumstance they could be here today and for me i haven't been sick i was a trial just for twenty years was for so i've been sitting by myself for a while on the public court so you may perceive  stating what i think the standard of review is i think i myself still am somewhat confused in that regard thank god this is the third district court in the case of for uses the abuse of discretion standard that the trial court error in its decision the this isn't not a new situation in trying to determine what is income and what is an appropriate deduction from the uncommon arriving at net income for the purposes of determining child support the   and an and the the statute provides for the income from all sources and then allows for reducing that income from  deal with things like the cost of goods or in this situation it could be late or the insurance work up insurance for that because the statute doesn't address th like in the illinois supreme court decisions of murphy i'm sorry mcgrath which was a two thousand and twelve decision and rogers which was a two thousand and four decision from both which use and using that guidelines of the statute make a determination then one step determination of net income and the guidelines support has been made and the identify a net income why it was not taking the income or the deposits that were made into the secondary this is the court went on to say that and then it was making an adjustment  what periods of two thousand and twelve are used or what periods of two thousand and eleven years and i think the court then went on to say then too they were going bookkeeping if somebody has the ability to show that they actually use the money or the in call for expenses move them along that if you can show it's reasonable and if you can show in this case the respondent made no effort was to show that his expenses identified on the schedule c were either reasonable or not the petitioner testified while she paid bills she knew that some of the bills that were paid by the business were per family expenses the respondent acknowledging that you know any one of their vehicles the vehicle that the petitioner used to get to and from her job work or the ones that that he would use or that the family would use any one of them could at any given time be used for a drive by and doing an evaluation things that he believed were expenses or the doctors but there was nothing about presenting books or records such as in  we're going to allow those because his records that he kept were very detail showing each expense who was paid the big check not in this case it was not all there was was the tax another of a mouth and then that was sometimes there was money they came through the s t all in all it was about nine hundred dollars a month that the respondent received for the support of two children that live with the security disability yes now the court included those on the income which i think technically the statute does say income from all sources unless it could be argued it was not but it could have been argued this isn't his money so they responded yes it's for the children which i think would have been an appropriate way to deal with this if you want to once all the calculations were done to say you know what this nine hundred dollars i'm holding out i'm not going to include it in net income because it's providing for the support of these children and that would have awful then dealt with  the needs of the non custodial parent in this if you know the bible by factors what you start with and then and then you still are supposed to apply all these bible five years in that that money that's coming in for the kids will satisfy this this issue that he has children that he also supports in his home and then we'll pull that out of there and then we can deal with the rest of that you the other issue that i think is very important is the classification of property which i believe is a manifest weight of the evidence of a standard of review and in this case the they were it was not disputed that almost all of the property all the assets with the exception of the ones that were clearly identified were purchased or came in during the course of the marriage and they deserve the presumption that they were marital property the court trial court took the attitude that mr gillum had a business before he was marry so those were even though they required after the marriage issue and they both worked in that business and either one of the all brought home paychecks that they used the business to provide for themselves so they it was it was their own work and the petitioner cut loans and and blew debris in and work the business a bank brought in a section of business for a while that came from joliet from outside the area that they were working so it was clearly a mari business even though it was his business before and i thought it's a business but it's not up it's not l l c it's not a corporation the the were in the names of the parties so it was a business but it was not a separate entity it was really this partnership that came with a marriage he had or she came in and he worked it together they brought it from according to the tax returns like an annual group an annual income of thirty five thousand up to a reported ninety dollars but when you what issue is that then the trial court should have ordered more child support and the second issue is that the trial court should have read designated business properly prior to the separation but the trial court looked at in this case was and we believe this case is on a piece of discretion issue in this court and all of the other district or the other  there right i believe there is there are in the trial court directly dealt with that particular issue when she found that while there were efforts put forth by the petition the petitioner got the benefit of those efforts because the money they enjoyed the benefits of the income all of the income of that of that business during the course of their marriage further there was no increase in value shown in the assets of the business from the type of the marriage  until the time of the divorce so the fact that there was a property some some equipment put into the business there was still there was dad in the business doubt that there had not been before the i would say that the earnings the gross income did increase over time the net income was signed by the attack the last tax return when they were living together and this is the tax return where mrs hill two thousand five hundred eighteen dollars now if you add in depreciation the net income of the business the depreciation is roughly sixty five hundred dollars for the net income of roughly nine thousand dollars for the business assuming evaluation and i can see also that the gauge case will hold that you can't use any deductions against business income which is the it might i'm arguing here that that's a silly result because that means that if you're a corporation you get the benefit of all the deductions whereas if you're a sole proprietor you get the benefit of no deductions that you and i think the take report is correct but it says then you're awarding in that you're basing your fighting on the income that was really never received by the person who owns the business because while the kid did it was a deal a paid out for labor for costs for the gasoline for the cost of doing business so i think the take her argument at least it reflects the reality of life in the business deviate from the statutory minimum yes no question in terms of the child support she did that based upon her finding this trail of had two children from his previous marriage of which he had custody you say there was a substantial i think if you your figures the truckers figure she deviated by instead of twenty percent she found ten percent yes and support so sure that's a that's a substantial deviation of the argument but she also found that there was the opportunity that both parties had the benefits of through their free health care for example ok this is ill of was living with the mother essentially what she said she paid ra the net income was arrived at only one of our was use even though the business had a secondary account which had twenty thousand the court also has made some kind of a adjustment because of weather conditions of which there was no evidence at trial but but use that the entire expenses from two thousand and obama so when the court made decision it it apparently adjusted income downwards believing that there had been a bad year for  cutting grass without considering other your occasion or whatever else somebody might do that wants to care for their lawn and because of a lack of snow but didn't adjust down the expenses which would include labor or expenses dealing with the acquit meant that might actually be used in snow removal or in lawn care there was no evidence in regards to the schedule c expenses as even as being necessary or reasonable they were just there so i think clearly the court has not the court error because it didn't include all the income and makes no explanation of why all the income wasn't included and comes to a figure of net income without explaining the figures behind hundred ninety thousand dollars in the year and that was in the year for seeding immediately preceding the filing of this divorce for the year two thousand and eleven the divorce was filed in january of two thousand  the property that was purchase and used in the business which the property that the party said the business started out with was a truck and a walk behind mower apart or the property that had been a believe that the trial or has error has committed and you should discretion in the by not including all the income by allowing or deducting from that income things and the court also err in by not honoring the presumption of marital property or all property acquired after the marriage itself or the specifically