tens of thousands of dollars in additional and unexpected interest but eventually eventually gets to trial and eventually the judge decides what is the amount owed and in this case the judge said in this so it's valid then that doesn't mean that it can't be superceded by subsequent legislation that is binding on every isn't it as we have the guidelines that were passed in the guidelines for it so so we're not talking about let's say let's say we agree with that part i think your client was seeking to have the reduction by a quarter each time a child reaches mature and once you get the state involved the state says you know who else has a very important party here the children and once that the state gets involved on behalf of the children whatever contract existed between the husband and wife can be new legislation that has been passed and there will be no different than if the miracle settlement agreement said that emancipation is effective as a big at the age of fifteen but but the the it was says now that  it's at seventeen no one is going to say that too bad for these kids these kids are emancipated at age fifteen and we're not going to apply for a law that applies to every other child who will be emancipated as of seventeen or eighteen normally done in the matrimonial arena take it for adoption know that you want to preserve the rights that you have under them near the settlement agreement by pointing out those rights the court that is considering a motion that could infringe upon those rights that if he wants if he wants to if he wants the courts to follow the mirror the sentiment agreement he had an obligation to bring it up to the trial judge here this is what the barrel settlement agreement requires to happen and we are asking the court to to enforce it but he never he never please the court there's one thing the council totally ignores and that her and her argument is they are in one nine hundred eighty three when the parties were divorced there were no guidelines for child support every circuit court has their own rule of thumb and calculating what child support should be so when counsel argues and and her brief they act these were statutory guidelines well they want those guidelines to go into effect passed by the legislature until september twelfth of one thousand nine hundred eighty four after the parties were divorced the other issue with the marital settlement agreement and support would be thirty two percent which should they have time was the rule of thumb guidelines and cook county before the statute was inactive and that the minimum child support payment was to be arrears and that's something that really needs to be paid attention to the heart of the matter is they at mr rice was ordered by the court october twenty third one nine hundred ninety to pay seven hundred dollars a month for four children it is incumbent upon him to have made that seven hundred dollar a month payment and not to unilaterally reduce it at the time that the trial court deviate i won't say used the word deviated at the time that the trial court reduced child support from twelve fifty a month to seven hundred dollars a month mr rice was already over twenty one thousand dollars was this the unilateral reduction when you were never in compliance with the orders for child support and when you have been in a rears from the time of the divorce until cheese that i have seen as it's directed towards my client mrs rice the mom was in court so many times with the state's attorney's office and to point out that between i want to now talk about the marital startlement agreement and the reduction of twenty five percent every time one of my children becomes emancipated no as you correctly pointed out when he filed his second petition to reduce child support he did nothing with it it was the order was entered no petition to an order saying that this will be withdrawn finley which is an illinois supreme court case was very clear when they were all they are the child support payments  presumed to be equally divided between children that whatever the child support payment is in this case seven hundred dollars a month will remain at seven hundred dollars a month until the youngest of the there is no question that the payments that he did make were recorded or if he doesn't have records anymore it's irrelevant because the payments that he made to those two mr justices they are orders they are not there are telling people this is what you're going to do not if you feel like doing it if you think about doing it this is the statute this is what you're going to do and one nine hundred eighty four the statute said we are now going to have child support guidelines and illinois and for four children those guidelines feet that's true justice because in one thousand nine hundred three as i said there were no guidelines but if there had been he would have been about if there had been guidelines of forty percent whether he would have been dollars and fifty cents per child and that's what i'm going to take off every time one of my children turns the age of eighteen well the marital settlement agreements that there was a minimum  right in there so my question that i think to myself then is that i would bet even the figure of twelve hundred a reduction by three hundred or so i did that work into th but i don't know if that they are time arrearages were added in if the state's attorney's office was handling the matter for they missed this rice from so i really don't know how they figured that i do know that on october twenty third one nine hundred ninety that was the same day mr rice filed his the titian first petition to reduce child support and the orders were entered on the same day so again when that order was centered he was already over twenty one thousand dollars in arrears now it stands to reason that when you don't make regular child support payments and months and months go by the theory which is going to roll it also stands to reason that so is the interest which is now mandatory from may first one thousand nine hundred eighty seven how if i mansur in your question judge how it was determined how much money mr rice was going to take off each time a pated or was that if figured he had to pay seven hundred dollars a month for the four children and he was going to reduce it by twenty five percent every time one of those children turned eighteen was to be paid that arrears and the unpaid support also be calculated that mother has a vested right and as far as the children no longer being children anymore this court held in contracted in one thousand nine hundred three regarding the termination dates those terminations dates were never modified by any subsequent order and therefore when husband relied on the n s a or the judgment when he wanted those terminations dates and he wanted the child support to be reduced he was also backed up by a governmental agency that being the illinois department of health and family services so therefore it would be impossible for to for him to have made any unilateral reductions because he never directly paid the white i also want point out as counsel correctly did litigation in this case really was from a short time period about two and a half years in  hundred ninety three and that's because husband by his the mere nature of his profession concentrated on personal injury nine hundred eighty nine was not a financially solid year for her husband and therefore he fell behind the child apply in the smith case it's very different from the case he said last just doesn't apply here because husband had the benefit if he would have used the illinois department of health and family services he would have the benefit of a record of all his payments and that's exactly what my client did here why he's precious if he does not if the court wants to reach back and say well this isn't a guideline support or it should have been more he does not have any financial records to provide the court at this time to make that  so i think that is extremely approachable to this case and i think again i go back to my at the beginning of my argument the real entity here that this court needs to decide is whether that illinois department of health and family services can unilaterally choose to either follow judgment or not follow just friends and then have these probably get worse detrimental rely on these and these administrative orders to their detriment as my client