first issue briefly the trial court granted mother's request of january twenty third chain that father be directed to help with the expense of extracurricular activities but she made that ruling effective not with the date of the filing petition back in january of two thousand and thirteen but rather she made effective october twenty third change some nine months later we began recently to assert that ruling was unfair particularly where she mailed that major child support modification effective with the date of the petition of the filing of the child support obligations petition but i think our reasons were adequately stated in our brief so i'm not attempt to elaborate here but rather would accept any questions that might have or as to the larger issue child support modification there are essentially four reasons why we think the trial court was in error in granting fathers petition to reduce trial support each of which we think individually justifie reversal in this case first the statute requires that father prove that there was a substantial terry aeration and his financial circumstances as a prerequisite to reducing child support our view is that to the extent there was any his own income that the actual figures are not really susceptible to using a calculator and calculating support based on the percentage guidelines but we ask we also opposed they're there with matecumbe so we did our own take and suggested that  a second reason why we think that the trial court should be reversed is that the father is to show that deterioration in his financial circumstances is involuntary father is a self employed over the road truck driver in failed to show in our view any reason other than voluntary choices on his part it's really that his income dropped dramatically in two thousand and eight which was about two years before judge butler had rendered his opinion in the case setting permanent child support third reason we think that the trial court should be reversed is that we think the trial court gave insufficient consideration to one of the statutory factors that is particularly applicable to this case specifically section five zero five eight to seek direction that the trial court and setting trials of or give consideration to the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved and fourth as a reason why we think the trial court should be reversed we believe the trial court incorrectly and somewhat in congress late founding fathers current income can now be ascertained as that these are different goals questions were judges to resolve when you're dealing with it's not all that unusual claim that  available income it may not be voluntary to the nation may be due to trade his factors that's a tough call for a dirge to make it seems to me it's even a tougher call for us to second guess once the judge in this  it's more a matter of looking at the statistics over the past many years and i think also that the expert witness we presented mr marsh gave helpful information to the court might have what kinds of trucks he can drive whether there's a specific job that was available for him personally to be more explicit if she were correct her assessment he was doing all he could reserve fortunate his income here the british there'd be no problem with her order with her if in fact there were extraneous circumstances that yes caused his income to be less in two thousand was wrong yes i'm asking the appellate court what what evidence was presented to judge hill and find that father did not meet his burden of proving that there was a substantial change in circumstances and that that change was talk about a change in the set up and as far as his relationship with someone else having access to his truck and him working two jobs related to that person versus just getting the job home well first of all i don't believe that that was the cause of the decrease in income the fact is he didn't testify about that he did testify about that and he also testified that he didn't intentionally reduces income  correct yes but again my response to that is twofold number one is i don't believe there was any relationship between his going from cops to hoffman is income went down when he was still like pops hasn't changed since he's gone to hofmann at second place he was still at cox and the income had gone down some two years prior to judge above making his ruling so the decrease look at several years of taxes and see is this something that's going to be an ongoing issue that your definition is that a fair statement well if yes but certainly within limits this was the fourth element of why we think that the  t was in error and such but they're also found that the father was not intentionally reducing his income is that accurate as he said there was little evidence of that but he also we speak of the limited years of a time to get that certainly correct i've presented on our side the tax returns for two thousand and six and two thousand and seven figuring that while there are certainly for any self employed person is going to be some variation in income twenty four months worth for an over the road truck driver should be a pretty substantial a sample size to utilize he had been driving though for some substantial time prior to  indicated in his testimony to judge hill that attack point he had been driving driving for at least fifteen years plus so when we was before judge buckner it's been driving for at least eleven plus years so there was substantial income of bailable to both sides again we utilized two years worth wire the separation figuring that again two years is a pretty suspicious pretty substantial sample size and it's the time period before the separation five ninety six through two thousand and six which is the first year that we presented evidence of his income so again he has a substantial history driving a truck even prior to being for judge butler so it's not that  information was only available for four years at that point and now for seven years before judge kill we got many years prior that that was available to either side they had wished presented to the court so i don't believe  and judge hill seems to suggest otherwise that while judge butler didn't have enough information to make a determination as to the arithmetic as to what his actual current income is now the judge told us my perspective is judge about were didn't have enough and information because i would suggest father has so much control over his own income then neither did judge hill have enough information as to his income earning ability to ascertain what again father asserted in his petition for modification that the company that he was leasing with in april two thousand and ten stopped leasing the owner operators effective december thirty one of two thousand and ten  petition but there was no evidence presented that the evidence that was presented was father's testimony that he had understood that hoffman especially cox was going to stop using owner operators and so he chose to then go with hoffman at that point but mother testified and it was not disputed she called cox to ask are you still using at the time we were litigation with judge hill are you still using owner operators and they said yes we are and in fact the father also testified that many of the loads he now has are actually from cox but now they initially have to go through hoffman instead of just going directly from cox to him the third claim of fair is that we believe the trial court gave insufficient consideration of the statutory element of preserving the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved and i as i had detailed in brief we believe that father has essentially been able to preserve for himself the standard of living that he had prior to the party separation in january two thousand and eight he's got not only his income but he's remarried to a lady who was earning about identical income to what he is also earning they're able to enjoy the testimony indicated some truly optional items such is hardly davidson motorcycle spending several hundred dollars a year on chewing tobacco the mother has tried as best she can to preserve the standard of living the children enjoyed before the separation in january two thousand and eight also she refinanced the old farmhouse that the parties  selected together during their marriage out in the country about a mile north of stanford she was able to obtain a new loan to refinance the house with her mother as cosigner wherein she pays about six hundred eighty dollars a month on principal and interest substantially more than father and his new wife are a pain together to rent their home about four hundred fifty dollars is what they're paying to one of his new wife's relatives to rent their single family two story home and plan she wanted to keep the kids in the house  because it's the only house those children know now or in seventh and fourth grade it's in the rural school district olympia that the children have been attending the children are comfortable with the geographic surroundings of that old farmhouse but are financial affidavit shows she can fairly afford those expenses and would have gotten the loan she now has on these terms without her mother cosigning and she doubts she can keep the loan based on in child support the mother has a junior college education she lives in the country's antiquated about fifteen miles west of bloomington and about twenty five miles east of pekin the larger communities nearer to stanford and with these two children and a third child she now is now as this just shy of two years old her income earning ability is sharply limited she and the children live frugally they don't take vacations they don't enjoy the extras that father and his new wife  able to enjoy with the big concern is being able to afford the house the concern they'd have to move uprooting the children from the home they've known the school the friends they've developed in the six years since party separated father is able to maintain his standard of living he's able also i would assert to help in a manner decided by judge butler a judge will make no mention of the standard of living the family had prior to the divorce i think that was given little or no consideration perhaps of her decision in many cases a custodial parent mother in this case either from her own resources or with financial assistance from a new spouse combining incomes sharing expenses they have sufficient financial resources such as the weather child support is one figure judge but which figure perhaps or another judge hill's figure doesn't significantly affect the children's lifestyle but i would submit to the court that the facts of this a decrease the decrease that was ordered by judge hill may make a substantial difference in the standard of living for these children and that in fact a father does have the wherewithal to assist so they can continue to to and foremost this is a case that of courses with regard to a question of whether or not there as the court has duly noted and then an abuse of discretion by the trial court and there are two main questions and i don't want to be the proverbial dead horse but whether or not i do have the use of discretion as counsel so i set out first and foremost with regard to the retroactive support on the extracurricular activities and whether or not the child support should have been modified pursuant to section five ten discretion i set forth a receptor forth in our brief a very detailed timeline my client filed in january of two thousand and thirteen an emergency petition to suspend child support due to the fact that fact time he was not only experiencing and an economic slowdown but that he was not even earning any income at that time two days subsequent to that filing the petition for contribution to extracurricular activities was three days what two days subsequent to the petition that for suspension of child support found that objection he hasn't said that it is an abuse of the course of this question to order him to pay for the sex the activities he has been paying for those and the court will note that there's not a cross appeal on that issue the out through t k hofmann which is where he broke up which is now what he did was when he moved to t k hoffman he essentially took his client with him which is cox transfer so my client found a client for t k hofmann and essentially is one of the chief i one of the main clients and one of the main drivers for cox transfer when cox transfer has load short your honor very dear owners with regards to the issue of that retroactivity we believe that judge hill was very proper in the retroactivity issue just due to the fact that when you look at the timeline on the question of the children's extracurricular activities my client filed his petition in with an affidavit indicating and clearly demonstrating that he was actually being loaned his child support between december of two thousand and twelve and i believe february of two thousand and twelve and he had to actually pay t k hofmann back his child support between those states and that's why the retroactivity is the lack of retroactivity is proper and as was properly stated actually by counsel when he was giving his his statement to the court just a few minutes ago this is a discretionary issue judge hill is the was the finder of fact in this case and she found that retroactively wasn't proper and it's a very short window of retroactivity on the children's activities and these two children when we're talking about their standard of living part of their standard of living as they are in a lot of activities and my client wants to see his children just as much as their mother be able to be in their activities but in that period of time he didn't have the money coming in but he did make sure they receive their support so that they can clean him to achieve a stand living at that time even though he was asking his support to be lower with regard to the issue of the modification of child support again we do not believe that judge hill did abused her discretion as the court was asking questions to my esteemed coll with regard to the for reasons that counsel gave proof of deterioration actually i think the first question that's asked in the statute under section five ten is whether or not there has been a substantial change circumstances pursuant to the two cases that fourth presented in our brief i believe that my client more than demonstrated at the trial court level that in fact there has been a substantial change in circumstances judge hill very clearly laid out in her memorandum of opinion that she not only looked at the facts that were set before her in a very lengthy trial that was delayed and she was frustrated and that was clear in her memory and she was frustrated with not only myself with the parties she was frustrated with counsel but this was also what we need lawyers who work the parties with counsel she was frustrated with everybody in this case and she made that clear and i'm very apologetic for my mike my client's apologetic for there were multiple delays this was also a visitation case this there was a lot of animosity in this case due to a lot of various various factors which caused the delays in this case and we did what we could to get this resolved and in the end we got the most importantly the visitation resolved but that caused delays that unfortunately held the child support side of this case also however mo getting on to the child support side of this with the substantial change circumstances judge hill took the time to go back to the record on the two thousand and eight to the two thousand and ten and look at judge butler's order judge butler did not have the ability or even though a lot of stories that judge still have which judge still have an expert she have my client accountant who was the accountant or mr and mrs mcginnis when they were married and who has remained in my client's accountant since that time and that's mr armstrong and even though judge hill indicated that mr armstrong had actually overstated some of the expenses she took the time to actually look at the numbers and find go through th through all of it and she crunched the numbers and she was able to come to a just number and my client accept that number and he's not arguing with that he thinks that what she came up with is a fair number he's not questioning that and that's why he doesn't believe it's an abuse of discretion and in addition when we look at the hard case the hard case indicates you don't look at two thousand and six that was a long time ago you don't look at nineteen ninety five we filed this case in two thousand and twelve we finished in two thousand and thirteen judge hill looked at two thousand and twelve and two thousand and thirteen but she took the time to check on two thousand and ten as a gut check we do not believe this is an abuse of discretion we believe this is a simple section five ten modification of chalcis part and we had a very frustrated yet very informed trial court judge who had to make a difficult decision with a self employed individual who did not under himself and we had two trial court judges who said that my client did not underemployed himself who said that my client did not do anything to avoid working and his own accountants has been encouraging him which is in the record to change jobs because he's not making enough money but he's doing everything he can pay his support and he's voluntarily paying one half of his ch honor and fortunately that would be because and i believe that was on the part of the fact that mr armstrong wasn't brought in to testify i think if mr armstrong would have been brought in to testify he could have then that would have been in the first trial he could have explained better how the trucking industry worked or how my client's taxes worked or where his taxes were and that's this grand fluctuation and how the work is handed out not because my client was w you receive that many loads in that year but in the next year he wasn't brokerage just out that's why in that that's the gross stocks relations and that's what judge bell there was faced with and that's why i said judge father didn't have the luxury that judge hill had in two thousand and twelve and thirteen and that's the frustration but as judge by out there said he did not believe in neither judge hill that my clients intentionally under employing himself but again as was testified to in both trials my clients know over the road trucker and there's a certain quality of our standard of living and quality of life and he only gets to see these children every other week so when is he supposed supposed to visit with his children there's a balancing act that i think both judges are trying to look out for for these children and for mr mcginnis with his children may please the court of counsel let me get dressed to topics that came up in the schools argument first of all she seems to place significant episodes on the fact that she had an expert witness for judge hill and the judge but was apparently disadvantaged by that i would submit the testimony of the c p a lyndall armstrong will be acknowledged as an expert in what he does was of very little significance in a determination of this case means what lying thirty five means what this deduction was which truck whether it's his pickup truck or his tractor for his over the road driving was the alone that was included in the the interest deduction at a particular line and in the tax return that was of some information but it had nothing to do with the trucking industry and why mr mcginnis would be earning as the court suggests substantially less in two thousand and eight if mediately after the separation in january of two thousand and eight than what he had earned in the two years prior to that what it was about the trucking industry that caused his income to drop so  on your expertise within a reasonable degree of knowledge do you believe that mr mcginnis had a substantial change in his economic circumstances mr wilcox objection your honor that's for the court to decide judge hill he's an accountant i think he can probably should crack seven twenty seven eighty four from fifty seven and make a determination so overruled mr wilcox let me indicate also i quote with the assertion that those are the two points in time interrupted by judge hill you're going to have an opportunity to cross on that mr wilcox when you do i'll take that into consideration right now i'm going to allow mr armstrong the accountant please state the question again miskolczi based on a reasonable degree of professional certainty in your capacity as an expert do you believe that mr mcginnis has had a substantial change in his economic circumstances between two thousand and eight and two thousand and thirteen mr armstrong yes that i was allowed to cross examine after some public way with the witness i asked so your answer to miss holes question was simply comparing his father's two thousand a tax return figures with his two thousand and twelve tax return figures mr armstrong's answer yes so judge hill wanted to hear over objection and expert but if it certainly would be in the transcript i just can't put my work here this morning as to the issue of judge butler having limited financial information both sides could have presented income for many years past and again it's not like we've got a real small sample size of just the four years that were presented to judge but were available to both sides were income information from years prior to that both sides decided that that was not of significance in furthering judge butler's determination of what was mr mcguiness income at the time so i would submit that judge hill is not in the significantly better position to ascertain income sufficiently accurate