as well as an inclusion provision that is scribed this first care i oftentimes use use it as a right of first refusal of the over the year whether mr peterson took a voluntary change of employment for a temporary period of time to become a financial advisor stack broker if you're my age in two thousand and eight at the time of the financial which he was going to be working as us trainee i guess and get his license and securities the course the second issue that is before the court relates to courts what i would refer to sue a that said what's wrong with the person third versus what's won with what's the benefit of the first every other weekend because it comes down to twenty six twenty four versus twenty six weekends testimony yes i both parents the first and third weekends was working fine the second corina five it was the i mean by the testimony was changing the schedule would be disruptive laying off hundreds if not more brokers various financial people leaving the industry because they couldn't make an income so you decide that what you want to do is to try to provide more  go to under the law under article five zero five to that minimum child support amount there was never an explanation why the court denied making that amount retroactive for bacteria to time and i certainly of real estate property one property here in salmon county that he valued at two hundred thousand dollars and two other pieces of property which i believe he testified that occupied by family members there is no right to shout it's being charged and he testified that he's not receiving any although i believe he testified that one person is in fact paying the mortgage on the proper the child support calculation is almost mechanic where you have the testimony saying by both parties that the system is working i believe the case law tends to support having some stability in the trial schedule what occurred in this case and in provides very little discretion pick up at this time drop off at this time that was the attempt to be done and to be honest if you to some extent it worked in that related past related to summer visitation the court can look at the back  to the child that they even though thank you were to sit overnight yes ellie's grief focus is one that mr peterson said that he wanted more time he thought it would be a good thing to have more time if that was the standard for modification of this patient every case should be changed on a daily basis here pelley with regard to the finances and the child support  support and attorney's fees her financial or financial status is appropriate in terms of peace with regard to child support it is not if she has decided that she would like to spend more time with her but that's not an issue that is you know we use the term red herring with regard to the attorneys fees issue i can sit up and i can stand here and i can argue about it but the courts can take a look at the package look at the number of times who are there for case management look at the motion to compel look at what state this was insured have and incredibly simple case provide me your tax return provide me your paystub provide a complete and honest affidavit of income expenses assets and that's we've got what we've got to move forward i'd still be in the trial court trying to get and have to pay large sums of attorney's fees because somebody has decided to make matters much more complex than they need because they want to be helped to do it right in this case i think is fairly clear and straightforward i believe that it supports your ward of child support at nine hundred one thousand dollars a month retroactive to october of two thousand and seven i believe she's entitled entitled to her fees for coming forward to this for this case as far as the physic patient i'm a very practical person this work every day and we've disrupted this trials life now but there needs to be some parameters when we say a truck or just vested with wide discretion there needs to be some evidence can be and i don't want this is a trial judge i know there's a lot of this wor a year and that i mean you try to figure out if you're out or when i figure in the holiday and the summer visitation whether there's actually even any difference i think a lot i think very early on i've i actually thought the alternate weekends of this jobs that was really theirs and i go pretend to understand it and it's in one of their earlier hearings and i think it was not really dealt with in the hearing for this court but you courts if you look at the entire history of the case first and third weekends were used for alarm for the longest period and that was really was the base ability and it's pearson asked for a change to he had i  from the first and third week to a situation where the parties had a right of first care when the other party was working and recognizing that would be best for the child if he was in the care of either of his parents rather than their party and the may two thousand and six order specifically states that it was also the may two thousand and six order where mr peterson then was having a shorter time than he was agreed to in may of two thousand and six without intent to pay the writer first care time that he was infusion and really time that went out the window by changes in the last what is the evidence presented as to why the second court weekends would be better and changed well what happened was evidence that was presented was mr pearson's testimony that he wasn't being given opportunities for a right of first care he was getting less time with the child yeah last time he had before me about c s and that since the right of would be able to sort through so he thought that it would ensure that he had reasonable contact with the child on a regular basis he also testified that he would be in the best interests of the child to have contact with  she testified that she was limiting her work to be those times when the child would be with his father may ask for documentation and they came back with me with a letter that says we've reviewed your child the child support for possible modification and we are unable to proceed because this case does not qualify for upward peterson in part we're seeing she was pursuing this alternate career to be available to the child more as well as to its new family to have a more stable and pipes style that would have not traveling away so much and the court found in specifically that mr putin's reduction in flight attendant income was not anything other than life in other words it was not thirty was in fact yes you order of may two thousand and six and it had nothing to do with the first the right of first refusal it was the way that mr peterson interpreted it and the lack of the abilities of the parties to work together on that interpretation that resulted in the need to change the order and it should be noted that made two thousand and six order which included the six thirty eight and i don't know what the rate traps for them out would have been in  thousand and six this wasa was represented pro se she represented so this sallis represented mr peterson it didn't take any rocket science to figure out what the child support  i'm not exactly sure what the argument is has decided that she were told by her child as young spend as much time with him as possible she didn't deprive mr peterson of time with the child what happens is these people have the ability to travel very low costs and this trip to hawaii i'm not exactly sure what it has to do with this case today and this particular ma a very high seniority so i got this much overtime or additional time  we can interpret his actions i guess in multiple ways that he's trying to better himself and have a more stable environment i just find it incredibly octu do it within sixty days schedule  position to wish realistically there was no future opportunity in the short term and i would say that the financial system is equally under stress