d he did did a bark on a search for ten years of basically trying to find the right shoes that fit his his knees and he never did find never questioned by opposing counsel again how time comes i'm sure i want to make sure we have the facts right so your client had an engineering degree was working in back field and then went to law school after that is that correct steps correct he went to law school at night  the engineering firm that he was working for then maybe a little nervous and so we work out a deal for him to come down to  central illinois where he was born and raised went to high school went to college on the west land played football had friends down there and so we thought it was a good fit for him and he thought it was a good fit for him a for us for us we thought it was a good fit for us and he wanted to  let me show you the ropes and stuff like that so it was kind of that situation and we worked out a deal and we believe the change in his to he will own the firm after ten years by which that time his chance for our gay should will be over and that there was no indication that  was impending that he was going to be fired from the current position that he had at the engineering firm where he was doing it to neary and legal work and so with those things on the other side how are we to find that it was an abusive discretion well i think the record indicates that the engineering firm had situations going on they were on the water  supposition on my part but i'm not sure he could've bought in to a practice and all that practice like he did with us your list of about that he was making no commissions no overtime no bonuses not based on billable hours with no percentage of new business brought in the only other power reality is that if a case roaches more than forty thousand dollars and fees you guys will decide what part of that he might get the script so you're paying him six hundred and fifty thousand dollars over ten  no incentive to bring in business ok that's this we set it up with a c p a and so we think there is a there was a good faith effort because he's not trying to be like you normally see people you know with their jobs or something like that so they don't have to pay child support he's not evading child support he's this situation looked at the naked numbers of reduction of his shower and that was it we had we had requested the ex wife to come up and she didn't make it to the hearing and so we could add that inquiry by the core of whether or not she even needed she may have wanted the or won the lottery last week we don't know but the judge trial court just independently made this determination and i think in my opinion the the a trial court abused his discretion because they th being a lawyer rather be an engineer then that would be you know respondent did not meet his burden of proof in showing that he acted in good faith in changing employment and thereby reducing his income drastically modification of support when the chang employment is voluntary is only appropriate when they responded active in good faith in that voluntary change the question of good faith is a question of fact and asked a question of  fact the determination is whether it is against the manifest weight of the evidence and that no reasonable person could conclude and agree with the court that the defendant did not meet his burden in this case and that not only could a reasonable person conclude that the defendant did not meet his burden based on the evidence presented no reasonable person would conclude that the defendant did indeed meet his burden it would have actually been against the man a face wave of the evidence and abuse of the court's discretion for the court to have found that the respondent did indeed read his burden of proof this is based on the fact that the salary is locked in for ten years any benefit that the respondent will receive from this agreement is diverted until after he no longer is required to pay support for these children including any potential for college education expenses he basically has the potential for a future windfall there's no benefits to the children and there is no evidence that was presented that he acted in good faith and t opportunity was presented he was not even considering livingston county he was looking in chicago st louis even texas the opportunity in texas had gotten so far that he was looking into how to become so i guess the question becomes if you are a parent under a child support obligation are you required to maintain that peace at least what you're making or are you prohibited from making a career change pursuing what you want to do in even if that involves a reduction in pain you are you're not  paying job you are not saying that as a fact there's case law here that does show evidence where lower paying jobs were taken and it was found in good faith that the circumstances were substantially different and the evidence before the responsibility less pay he had a prior lack of job security and no ability to find comparable employment the respond in this case is not showed any of those factors in fact he stated that he would be getting a raise merely in the fact that there was a change in management in his company does not indicate that there's any risk to  employment he has shown no evidence that he could not have obtained a jab similar salary and the burden is on him to prove that opportunity presented himself he was looking in chicago he was looking in st louis there was no evidence presented that he had ever looked in the instant county at all prior to this after presenting itself so therefore the argument that he was looking to relocate located to livingston county seems to be an argument after the fact to support the decision to try and prove it was in good faith even though that was not the initial consideration that's not where he was looking that's not what he was looking to do the court actually considered that and remarked on it in the hearing when it determined that the actions were not taken  prior agreement between the parties as to where the child support would be set and so there would there would have been no reduction in child support as a result of that decision he surely had come to realize that it's right  evidence in front of the court there was no no reasonable person would have found that he acted that i don't have that exactly i believe it was a little over a one thousand dollars a month what was it going to look at it was going to reduce drastically i would concur with opposing counsel that it would probably been by about forty two to provide that he did act in good faith and furthermore mr brucker opposing counsel gave up that argument when they decided to proceed in spite of the fact that my client information yes so i had i had filed a file discovery i had received discovery sponsors late the week before suggest a few days before hearing had gone through them realize that all the information that i would need was not available and so my continuous was actually based on the fact that i wanted more time to be able to  counsel chose to proceed nonetheless again any evidence that was not before the court it was the opposing counsel it was a response that judy's to the burden to prove and therefore was their duty to ensure that the evidence was indeed before the  and he did not take into account how this wouldn't have to still very well at best he did not take into account how it would impact his children and to the due diligence at worst your honour's he actually did take into account how it would impact this children and carefully thought out a method whereby it would not whereby his child support obligation would be reduced and frozen for ten years until he was no not consider the financial the financial obligations he had to his children and the impact that that would have on his child support and his ability to support his children more fact that any benefit are delayed till he is no longer required to pay child support the fact that he has locked himself in to a salary of sixty five thousand dollars with no opportunity for bonuses no opportunity for commission no opportunity for overtime no opportunity for any increase in that income absent a large  he was up to date on everything and everything you know so i think it was a beautiful discretion for have to summarily arbitrarily make that decision