but making the currency ultimately left the petitioner in the position of having to come back in fifteen or twenty or twenty five years later on and say well i've been married for thirteen years but i've been supporting this individual twenty five and the problem i see with that is that at some point in time you're going to have high wage earners at the onset of their marriage if they don't have a prenuptial agreement have a situation where they're confronted  amount of combined child support means it's a can to equal protection and and what i mean by that is this the standard of living the dream of course marriage isn't one exclusive to this city it's one that also has be protected and body for the support paperwork and there's plenty of cases in all the cases say hey we can take into account or we are it's a trial for us to take into account the ability to pay or whether or not an individual has a six twenty seven thousand dollars a month and the problem was the courts awarded a seventeen thousand dollars a combined child support maintenance without regard to the income that the respondent could earn had presented to problems first  fifteen hundred dollars a month of net income that she could receive she was working on a full time basis she was up at eighteen thousand five hundred and i left the support of it with ten thousand five hundred or eleven thousand dollars a month to live on and on the same standard of the household names the real problem with market happening minors you're exactly correct the real problem in this situation is this all the way up to trial they added it for financial affairs and the reasonable needs that were consistently testif by the petitioner indicate that the regional household expenses during the course of the marriage were twelve thirteen thousand dollars a month they lived together in tab june of two thousand and eight and so that time period their gross household income was right case he was employee with then a emergency room services facility he ultimately was without practice on his own that first year that practice on it down in terms of by his revenues and they had to borrow seven proposal to the petitioners propose it was something only water of ninety five hundred dollars a month for child support about eleven thousand five hundred dollars roughly when it comes to maintenance for a combination of about twenty one thousand dollars you total exemptions and itemized deductions were right at sixty nine thousand two hundred ninety three dollars for some expert testimony presentation says and so the net result is the first seventy thousand dollars the dilemma is is that they divided up the uncovered medical expenses seventy thirty when there was no indication whatsoever that he was going to do something untoward with the health insurance coverage and didn't make any sense whatsoever it was simply a fifty fifty split of them every expenses here that there's a a june of two thousand and ten i gotcha in june two thousand and ten the problem was and what they would do is he would transfer from a money market pounds hasler he would still work money throughout the course of a somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty six thousand dollars but i don't mind was the court uses the valuation of twenty six thousand dollars based on that time period if that's your thing to do but then you have to adjust the fifty thousand dollars a yeah because the court house all i stated in my brief in response to the apple wants arguments that the standard of review for all four issues before the work is the same it is an abuse of discretion standard and this court finalized that was refuted properly twice in a temp interim the hearing and that final hearing that that was in fact paid off before the divorce even started there were several other debts that dr millis my point of those out my brief alleged where those monies that were borrowed were stacked why when there should have been excess funds available to meet those expenses he was borrowing in the first place my client had zero access to bank accounts assets of any kind it was in the north decision husband control of the entirety of that and so my point was a trial and i believe the court adopted this is that it was impossible to understand dr millis as road map that he tried to create is the answer when i would ask  repeatedly you know how can we be sure that the fifteen thousand came from one account i travel i don't know where did the twenty thousand you borrowed from citizens bank tax withheld i don't know is it true that the ninety five thousand dollars in tax liability was paid off pointed out that if we start adjusting values of any kind in this case we have to look then at the entire totality of this estate because there are many things mrs gillis requested that the court did not work as well and we didn't bring those before this trial you know because i don't think it's a no reasonable person burden that we could overcome but my my reading of the court's determination was a simple one in equity this is what the court deemed appropriate and it was case that both parties were employed at state farm and both netted fifty thousand dollars a year and my client had custody of the parties she would receive child support the amount of approximately sixteen thousand dollars a year tax  however she has custody of the parties three minor children and it's presumed in illinois the our guidelines alone which are considered minimal amounts of support because that's proper i do not believe a maintenance recipient receiving spousal support in lieu of employment it comes because of the sacrifices she's made throughout this marriage which was fourteen years of data separation sixteen date of course and that doesn't move the many years these folks were together before they got married should be panelize because her income comes from a stream of spousal support rather than maintenance i also take issue with mr walker's math that he's presented in that the testimony was not that she would not pay any tax interestingly in this case that that what she's getting seventeen thousand five hundred a month combination child support payments seventeen thousand shop were unknown at the time of trial he had yet to purchase a home in his name so my client was allocated fifty five thousand dollars in itemized real estate auctions that are no less what's not so he very well may have much more net happening to me tain't themselves she cannot remarry she cannot live with another person a conjugal basis and she and her spouse have to be a lot the second piece of this is child sports going to end when the youngest child is a man's a paid so this isn't a seventeen thousand dollar award that's going to go wanted her to have passed she's looking at eighty five hundred a month once the children are out of her care and the expenses that relate to those children and less pay off and she'll have to give up certain decisions in life i e to engage in a new romantic relationship as her husband has time in order to maintain that stream of income which she relies upon completely with a high school diploma just a few years old so he might have been seventeen eighteen or nineteen and she actually followed him before they were married at different times during his presidency and education and all that test wanted was laid out about things that she did following him not as a spouse but as his partner as soon as the parties were married was marrying a high school graduate she was marrying soon his vision his income can be very high they chose to have three children they chose that she would not pursue a career or education that she would care  burden shifting to the pay or was acceptable in fact i think the opinion even states a trial court's in a better position to make those determinations but my experience is that when you have permanent cases where megan says paid off period of time when the pay or approaches a norm or a tyrant age not suggested he wants to return to certainly a fifty and a more normal retirement age the court will certainly review maintenance and reduce or terminate all together there's no expectation income this is north received one point eight million assets one point two million more than her husband my client has one hundred twenty eight thousand dollars state which is the same as what her husband is being paid and has to pay off refinance or sell the marital residence next month the resident she shares with her children so no plans work certainly up in the air as to know what to do what can i  one thing we do know this is illustrated that i don't see many wives of individuals of this income earning capacity due she as soon as the party separated or shortly thereafter took a job with a retail establishment down the gap and started working part time hours even though she had the youngest child wasn't even in kindergarten yet two others i don't know many folks who do that and she testified it didn't make me a lot of money but it's built my level of confidence i've gotten out there i've met people and it's certainly a step in the right direction certainly according to may hope she doesn't follow through the plan of attack as she'd like to there is a modified ability issue there that the mayo decision indicates nonevent essentially but i believe it was this or any of what was it starts getting it said that's an acceptable birth shifting and that trial work and review modify ability including if wife has not taken appropriate two hundred dollars but the home that mr may earn was tiny compared with the net it thirty thousand a year a child support on top of that and then had to part with ma i would also point one other thing even if mrs willis rehabilitates herself where is she going to pay now forty forty one years page in comparison to her husband whose income has gone up and by the way i want to point something year was two hundred some thousand in earnings because they had to collect on bills they had start up costs once they had occurred and receivables came in the next year the pendulum went up here to what i mean so the earnings years home and ten more separate the courts reiterated that same minear language that states if a spouse is employed will only have a lower level of income or no income at all permanent maintenance may be appropriate even if this is not a twenty twenty five thirty year marriage because the idea being that even if it were thirteen years if i take thirteen years out of my life in my partnership with my husband and i give up my career or i don't pursue a career to take care of three children in his home so he can be a busy physician and make the kind of money we make is it appropriate when that marriage a happens when one party elects to step out of the marriage for the person who made those no tangible sacrifices to live at a much lesser standard of living what value do we put on all of the things she did during this marriage that didn't earn a paycheck and i think that's what those cases are repeatedly telling us now if we thought that this was the case we have a lot of cases in mclean county with physicians whose wives are nurses in or out of the field for a few years or many years potentially to take care of children and family but have a nursing degree and sometimes not always can get back into a nursing field and earn an income of fifty sixty thousand dollars we're still getting permanent payments of course in this case because their husbands are making four five six seven so i just don't think there is a way for a parties this afternoon was for pay a profit thirteen pounds a month makes that was an order i bring that up because that amount was based on my client earning minimum wage full time which she does not so when the court order substantially less eighty five hundred a month i don't know what the quote was basing that on a presumption too that she could make sixteen thousand but the eleven twelve thousand dollar figure was presuming she was earning minimum wage shows the thriving transfer of the fifteen thousand dollars for reference you know the reality of this is there were threats to testimony at trial that that was directly from the thriving i or it was from one thousand dollars ultimately all we're simply saying this is if you're fifteen but that but the other that one says thousand dollars there was another fifteen thousand taken out that came into the balance that was shown within the chest with a count that had a balance shown twenty six thousand five hundred that's a whole different fifty thousand dollars