happened but it can't work in this particular case because of that just because of that so i think what several weeks during the summer and that's what that means i mean household pointed out that there's you know several complaints with that he's having any press enter stand but that's already hearing because both parties work there is some time this summer that someone else is from have to take reasonable i'm sure made them for the trial court well but the problem is that for us to conclude that the trial court error here we have to reach with my is appropriate and let me just yeah there's a lot of situations where we have the financial review but i think the case of child custody and child visitation would be available to him t wrecked all for the betterment my right i guess i'm asking does the case also say that kelly had to present evidence of that nature and now it does not it doesn't say you have shown that extravagance but it does visitation this is never been a question about restriction or serious and danger men which is a requirement under section six zero seven of the illinois marriage and dissolution of marriage act this is always been a case about what is reasonable visitation the trial court had all the facts fraud to have one weekend per month and if not a two day meeting it can be up it can be from a state to a tuesday presuming that mia doesn't have school arguably there's not that long of a weekend one time a month with every school calendar but certainly most months there are three day weekends so this forty eight days fifty days that's a miss that doesn't exist there are many times in the month when when dr mason on fact have a three day weekend every single month he gets every single spring break pursuant to th that want to be fair for two i can think of two good reasons first of all case law is clear that a child's needs and household expenses are often times hides the level of support although only expenses exceeded her income every month at the  time trial by approximately seven hundred dollars she wasn't out she wasn't in a position where she could spend upwards of five thousand dollars a month for her household or for me as she wasn't she was at limits travelling family because she didn't have the income coming in so that's not a fair analysis to the chair for dr meese and provides his equipment provides his medications for his patients from march of two thousand and eight into will december two thousand and eight when dr mason was starting up this practice and getting going he his practice in july of two thousand and nine he hit his trigger event with i hope partners and what that meant was he was making enough money with i hope partners that fifty two percent of his net cash receipts twenty to thirty pages long they came into evidence but certain expenses would come out that the p c would have to pay and those would come off the top so i hope partners want to be entitled to that but if the net cash receipt in actuality was very close to  about actually grossed by it makes it a piece and in july so prior to july of two thousand and nine he was for lack of a better word salary i hope partners loaned him enough money so that he could have a certain salary each month and in two thousand and nine again he remained he just started this practice in march of two thousand and eight he had grossed in excess of a million dollars and that that increases it's pretty substantial yes and ninety nine income for two thousand and nine was over five hundred twenty thousand dollars so we get back to the question of you know if it fair to world war child support then the household expenses that exist for kelly healy's household expenses of the time of trial were approximately forty three hundred dollars that too much this five thousand dollars too much for me the answer to that is me yes father and five hundred twenty thousand dollars a year he grosses which if you do the math pros is forty three thousand dollars per month only works for hope institute as a training specialist she grosses in two thousand and nine thirty four thousand dollars a year parts grossing nine thousand dollars a month more than kelly gross the whole year me isn't titled me as a title to the standard of living have her parents been together and parents been together she would live in a household that grosses five hundred possibly five hundred thousand dollars a year and the i think the only thing concept that goes along with statutory support is that dr mason is paying twenty percent of his income so at the end of the day he still has eighty percent of his net income left over to pay his twelve thousand dollars a month and living expenses to contribute to his retirement account to fund a life insurance policy my client on the other hand at the time she was receiving five hundred dollars in support had five thousand dollars in retirement accounts could it find a life insurance policy resources are completely at the time trial utilized for purposes of supporting her household and the cause but the doctor is going to help her from group retirement you're not arguing that are you absolutely not arguing that just as i'm just arguing that she he should pay a thousand dollars a month because it seems pretty fair and it's one hundred thirty times more than me a sibling scott so that seems pretty fair that was his testimony it's not about what's fair it's about the statutory guideline he has a duty to support me at that obligation and this case is very distinct from the graham case the graham case is the case that was remanded back because the the trial court found that it should be a deviation downward  consider all of the statutory factors under five five zero five eight two in this case only receive six hundred dollars per month to support her two other children in addition she works she has an income coming to support her household that deviated downward from twelve thousand dollars to eighty five hundred dollars per month certainly more than my client's receiving so it is there any case law that says how much is too much now certain  the child of a physician who earns a very large income she should be entitled to have the scenes similar standard of living at her mother's house if she does a father's house and if interest rates will basically other sources of income coming in his son illinois we're not it we're not a state that has to account for where the child support is going there's no requirement that kelly kelly outlines that she spend even money on school and you know new shoes and new out there's not going to be children shouldn't live in a household where they're treated differently that goes against the social norms and and everything so could we provide an economy you know how we have to put dr child support in one account and just use that money on me and me i'm sure that could be a lot of the state but it's not so i guess does he is it possible that certain dollars will be taken from a joint account and new shoes will be bought for evidence or he bought for or could that have been sure it could happen but it all goes back to dr mason continuing to live in a household where at the end of the day when you if you take if payment of child support net income at the end of the month approximately seven thousand dollars so that her mates in for his household of one still continues to almost have nearly three times as much available income for for his purposes and i think that's what outweighs the factor that this money could be used for incidentals for the other child sure it could but we're still looking at me as a standard of living near is entitled to the standard of visit he flew in both that with both of their first air flight airplane rides kelly has done things you know she travels and she exposes as much as possible but they travel to her home in michigan that's owned by her family to save on expenses that's are summer vacation every year and there's there's nothing that should prevent me from having enjoying the luxuries that are falling into a the next argument i would like to address is the calculation of child support  professional corporation purchased a new piece of equipment paid for it outright a seventy four thousand dollars and the trial court was able to take those factors into consideration when determining it was not appropriate to allow the student loan deduction and i clearly aware of all the financial resources of the parties that issue having received policy exhibits and hours of testimony i think the same applies to the child support tackle a show in which again we're looking at in piece of discretion the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining not to testifying pushed by his counsel said i think i should pay seventy five hundred dollars in arrears that seems fair and equitable and i have that much money that's the amount of that team of attorneys fees that ends up being awarded to my client and when i look at the award of attorney fees two factors we have to consider those the already have the ability to pay and does my my client not have the ability to pay i won't go through again how we know that dr mason has the ability to pay two thousand and nine here and five hundred twenty thousand dollars he inherits one hundred sixty eight thousand dollars from his father his attorney testifies can't remember exactly how much but that only he paid his attorney in excess of sixty thousand dollars from may of zero excuse me from minivan she doesn't have the resources available to pay this the only resource she will have available to pay her attorneys fees would be the support she would receive for the benefit of mia and it's not applicable or just for this for the trial court to