threat was mr mays to his children during this period of time this from a was employed with the state of ohio as fractional officer for the last sixteen years he was also a tactical support officer one one hour per week i don't believe there's a reason for especially when you have two young children this age where you know point where they're trying to formulate their bonding with with the father is here in one hour which court then went on to indicate that the court did not want to create a case of parental alienation between the parties and the children so there was never a specific finding  that sounds like an expansion of the previous lower visitation i understand it's still restricted but but i mean that they go sit in hand with him saying i'm trying to do what i can this is what i'm going to give you this is where i or or threats to the petitioner or the child violated i understand but that was done early in the case your honor and there was no progression of violations after them that work they have where you are filed with the court or that was filed by the state's attorney's office client she has some language that the previous order entered by the court in reference to chalice for should stand up again that was never agreed to and that word in the state in type of child support that mr the army was forty one fifty watt so total mileage from two thousand love it was thirty three thousand nine hundred forty two dollars as opposed to sixty four thousand in two thousand and ten he made half the amount of money that he didn't two thousand and eleven suppose in two thousand and ten now that's not a substantial change in the circumstances of the party's i don't know what is a means of spiritual change is a reason to change the order o had his evidence before him of his two thousand and eleven income and obviously that there was a major difference between what he made in two thousand and ten what he made in two thousand love it and he refused to modify the  please the court counsel my name's jennifer ash and i represent the petitioner serenades i first like to address a few of the issues raised by justice connected justice appleton with respect to the visitation i believe that judge grow was extremely progressive with respect to the visitation that was issued to mr me just as appleton you asked whether or not this involved the child and i think you stated that it did involve the children and i would propose to you that it did involve the children  in their respect that they were there they were there in the home sleeping in you they were there in the home with their mother sleeping and he's parked in a blanket sleeping bag a belt off in a snow drift underneath the window where they sleep so teacher well i'm going to back up just a little bit just to set this on december thirteenth just disconnected right the first order entered with respect to child support and it was an agreement between mrs williams and i for the nine sixty five o'clock we did not have agreement with respect to visitation exclusive possession mortgage payments all the other issues that go along with the dissolution starting so that's why judge gross had a hearing then on the fifteenth the fifteenth is when the temporary order judge perry crossed off agreed that we filed for the emergency order protection so there was very limited visitation that he had with the children prior to the request for the entry of an emergency order of protection and it was the circumstances that happened during those visitation periods that led us to seek an emergency order of protection and those included threats made to the children in the statements of the children made to the counsellor into their teacher about being scared about their dad rules i think are helpful in cases like this which i wrote did have this case for a few days in the middle of the sumburgh due to a family emergency from december thirteenth two thousand and ten all the way through november of zero five he heard the hearing on that emergency he heard all the testimony with three that he heard all the testimony every single time that emotion was filed first supervised visitation that a motion was filed for easter visitation such broker had all of that evidence in front of him so yes not only did he hear the evidence on the testimony and that the bat was presented during the custody visitation here i'm vinyl custody visitation i would submit that it was if i went back and look at the exhibits it would be included in the exhibit evidence was submitted i believe it would have probably been in early eleven so did they come back at the at the final days of trial in two thousand and eleven no they take and come back but that evidence was submitted over the course of the day and i think that the referral i know i don't know why did i and my closing argument i don't think it was in my closing argument again at the time the final time of trial the plenary order protection order to enter and section two nineteen of the illinois domestic violence act it's easy to fourteen the seven doesn't require the strict requirements of section six zero one point six zero seven point one of the illinois marriage and hearing was set on the fifteenth with judge pro he was out due to a family emergency the judge parent in this williams and i had worked out many of the issues with respect that we made with respect to the temporary issues and that's why i had prepared and agree temporary that his petition to reduce child support which never happened that's gross still has the ability to go back and make a finding that mr may should have made those mortgage payments even if it wasn't ordered on december fifteenth two i did not call it to the judge's attention my client with the need child support which that which the order at the time required by the order the visitation portions of the order had been dealt with with respect to the emergency order protection that was file exclusive possession my client was in the house on so no i did not fall into the court's attention but these are all temporary issues that had to be dealt with in one fashion or another and i think a review of mr mr pappas is brief reveals that actually based on the two thousand and ten income mr mayes's counts work should have been one thousand one hundred seven dollars and so when we calculated at the end of two thousand and ten he was actually  i mean perhaps i should have called it up to vacate it but the bottom line was my client was receiving child support and i'm not consistent with statutory guidelines and visitation was being addressed person to and sort of action chit exclusive possession of the home  with respect to and again i would submit the church pro even had it been vacated he still has the ability to go retroactive to the defining of the position of dissolution order child support order to make and testimony of mr mason with respect to this in the court relied on the truth out i think we had income history back from two thousand and eight two thousand and nine two thousand and ten in your today two thousand and eleven that's what we're utilizing certain amount of child support and there were three months that mr mason testified in two thousand and eleven that he did it in i think it's easy for the the trial court to have made the assumption that he was going to continue to work in the military was well behaved by the military the military was providing medical care for him in kentucky the military was for continuing to buy health insurance for the entire family at the time of dissolution and that's at the very last day a trial that he says oh by the way i'm not going to be paid any longer when  the trial court can ascertain the child support continues to be withheld pursuant to the notice of withholding in fact i think the notice of withholding on september thirteenth two thousand and eleven child support continued to be with health there's never been a lapse of child support withheld so i asset out of the equation and say ok you should've been worded equity in this marriage in this marital residence but i'm not going to take any debt talks that that would be i'm not going to do any other adjustments to the to the balance sheet and in fact if you were awarded half the equity contain the residence the balance sheet would result in mr may's receiving and it's a negative net worth these parties have more debt than they do assets mr mays receiving only a negative twenty percent of the marital est in this news receiving a negative to you would be an error so the court did not abuse its discretion in the division of marital assets and that's as presented in the judgment of dissolution of marriage and i would submit that you can't hold just one asset out and ask for equity stipulated agree that that pension is going to be divided evenly between the parties on the court to that value was not utilized in the division of the et in the balance sheet it divided the assets of the debts or were i just i don't know the answer to that i was just thinking if i think the offer probably has not been entered given the appeal but i don't know whether or not the potter has been entered yet but i would submit that it probably has not yet been entered but that that was what w records this was going to be there for the review it was going to be under further review there is now at the moment another pending violation of the order of protection another charge with respect to that so there has been continuances with respect to the court's review longer exist at the time the trial would get those funds back in november of two thousand and eleven those funds were gone mr mays did not show by clear the scene evidence that those funds were used for miracle purpose he indicated he paid a cellphone bill of two hundred dollars a dental bill of one hundred fifty dollars and paid to marital bells but the trial court properly found that he did not meet its burden of evidence seen that those funds were properly used for merrill purposes and part of mr the entire six thousand dollar figure opposed to take out the amount utilized for the tax preparation and also gave a credit for just a patient based on the amount of joining nine dollars that my client had to pay for federal and state taxes she was only able to the petition right place at a valuable pension and her argument which the court accept it when they went through that argument when they made this division of personal property and she