after all this incredible testimony was presented to the court as well as both of the underling respected lawyer super appear to put together this premier agreement under appropriate circumstances and the corroborating testimony of mr gore in the courtroom most controls are allowed to control three principal issues in the dance of parties getting married the first is a determination as to what's going to be marital property in this case clearly the parties exercise their right to override determination as to alimony in small support rights and be a guideline as to what's going to happen in the dissolution proceedings as relates to property division day allocation attorneys fees all three of these with the principal purpose this kind of a nearly really a red herring in the fact that my client always operated under a proposition whereby he acknowledged she had fifty percent interest this is the deal he made with her and he is going to abide by and live by the call in fact you can come in no matter what it may be considered inappropriate but you can still make the request and the reporting having been named now the judge has to determine whether these unusual circumstances judge found she needed twenty five hundred dollars a month for me and if you take them off the sixty one hundred the court found by deduction that she half and children thirty six hundred dollars a month in the living expenses for the children and in order to child support  survived on your marriage sneer i understand his interpretation he drafted the agreement is to be construed against him by divorce court as a corner directly he comes into this courtroom clean hands because he drafts an agreement then he breaches it but now he wants to use it to his advantage gives the trial court the opportunity to divide america rastus as it sees fit and i know we're not here to retry the case or the second judge or second guess just so we're here to determine the winner which is a level of abuse of discretion which is a huge standard and whether or not this finding by the judges against manifest weight of evidence so having then established the posture of the case do we have a man who wants to enforce an agreement and doesn't abide by it  as delineated by the supporters of this woman was having difficulty dealing with the issue of child raising because she was emotionally involved in some people will say maybe overall most women but i don't know how you can second guess this woman who is absolutely nothing in the record that indicates that there is a hardship that there isn't on reasonable and forseeable circumstance are reasonable reasonable forseeable circumstance and yet as i look at ju decisions although a lot of it does talk about the validity of the remit there are multiple pages that just talk about how your own background her circumstances then her circumstances now and the doctor's  report so are we saying ultimately that the judge didn't look at all of this through the course or is he responding to a petition and that would be the question i'm asking i'm assuming that you respond to the evidence but of course she should be as to whether she needs support or not the sixty one hundred dollars in my opinion was said to determine what her knees were at that time because peter was taking care of a lot of the needs of the children at that time since the divorce occurred he has not sure there's ample evidence i believe in the record as to why she'd be eighty five hundred or sixty one hundred fifty sixty one hundred and my opinions are twenty four twenty five numbers whereas when he made his final decision on child support it was only after he saw the tax return of twenty  this course exhibit number two and courts exhibit number one which was a pro forma statement as to peter's income which support the woman for the first time that he could use to anchor a child's world war which he did the found on september two thousand and eight  two thousand and eight so i understand he is a broad discretion to make that change and in your question is a question the court will consider all this in perspective the final decision of course you should and i believe you did i remember pieces of this anywhere in references that he made she's saying if you believe this is what he did he sees the final two thousand seven standards as opposed to two thousand two or three standards does he ever say that and i'm quoting it the decision i don't see that but when he reserves the reserves current support pending this information does he say anything about i'm concerned about the passage of time i'm concerned about encounter things of that nature on  course even the even a little peter was probably not in soccer in those types of things in those days with extra but there were doctors expenses didn't he wasn't getting insurance from at and is eating the insurance for that the record did if we're going to get married i want to have some interest in this house and it may have been cultural it may have been just i am your wife aren't going to be your wife i'm entitled to this but the fact remains that her court ordered examination supposed to be neutral even in playing and going in and looking at the parties and seeing what the circumstances are for the best interests of those children and it appears based upon the judges deciding on that doctor or psychologist probably and then he is own finding that work is likely in the future but she's just not ready now because of the circumstances and her beliefs where they're given their cultural well that they are here that she just can't go to work now so yes that was a neutral i mean if we can call it that in the in the she brought it up or you bring up this is a six so forty you know we're we're we're we're trying to find out what's best for the children know what's best for the children is to be home with their mother for a period of two years three years in mother needs