the issue in this case becomes or is after he receives sole custody of both children two boys who are dead kind i believe are fourteen and twelve are probably sixteen and fourteen now ah we had a hearing by representation in front of judge harris at which point ob thirteen threes were exchanged and the judge here has ordered steve turk who had sole custody of both children to pay child support to the man custodial parent their op iris turk and will without making certain certain findings but it's our position that number one read if you look at the statute itself section five zero five of the air is clear in a number of areas and i believe that if you look at trial five you will find that although it indicates that zero five the various parts of it all indicate and set forth the words custody or parent and non custodial parent in five zero five when awarding support from a non custodial parent to a custodial parent ah we have a guideline stance you know illinois which provides the at odds a non custodial parent pays a certain percentage of his or her net income for support in this case there were two children the guideline number would have been twenty eight percent during in if you go through the stairs shoot consistently in in  has been supplying all of the child's education and health care and has been paying all of the child's bills but the court ordered him to pay her child support which i believe is not in keeping with the statute itself and doesn't follow the case law of the state of illinois it's very ambiguous or isn't the purpose is in the best interest of the child and under the circumstances didn't the child  suggestion is referring to the actual time the child ends with the non custodial git justice approach yes to yes and no first of all there's two children one spends a hundred percent of his time with his father and doesn't see his mother and there's a second child that spends approximately fifty percent of the time with the mother but the father he has both children for approximately seventy five percent of the time if you average it out so it isn't one of those cases like says ariel which was cited by my opponent which was a split custody arrangement this was now this was so custody in my client and by the way under the statute is it set forth right now or the amount of court found no deviation in the child in the trial court didn't even figure out what this is turks are actual income wise but didn't give that one a guideline support number would have been because she had an six i believe fails to comply with discovery it did then subpoena evidence can be used without having to set any type of drop and any negative getting it isn't because the non custodial parent is the one charged with the obligation to support there is nothing in the state answered and there's a there's another case called schrock which is an illinois case fifth district which i would point out to the court about the nature of the order here sure i mean you just you just talked about changing the cut temporary custody of expression you know that you really you talked about split custody this from discussion about joint parenting agreement correct here i'm sorry if i didn't make it clear it's because i'm jumbled with so many facts to try to give you at the same time but yes its sole custody visitation one child visits close to fifty percent of client and ordered him to pay child support anyway ok though the fact i'm trying to keep track in my mind is when it was changed from twenty three i think it was twenty three zero eight to sixteen hundred what happened then was we were going through the case and public court probably should look for one jurisdiction where this particular up where the court would order it but remember we have a guideline stance you right now in place of the one that was in place at the time so i income but the duty of support is both sides my client is paying support for his children he is supporting them in every possible way where they are in that in addition he is giving money to the nine custodial parent on a monthly basis which amounts to make and said it just isn't child support and if you read the statute carefully non custodial parents pay child support to custody of parents it's what i statu in the in the statute it says section six zero one section six zero one of the year is a provision which says that a ninth of that a parent someone other than a parent could sue both parents for support if the child is in their custody under eight obligations goes it would not be proper for the court to consider that there's a great disparity in the gym here and that the man is still in the parent may need some resources in order to provide funds for the child to is deviate from the guideline them out that she would have to pay him in the court to deviate to zero but i don't think the court has the authority under the statute as it's written to provide get a non custodial  e for the the trial judge and also in keeping with the chief justice garments question you know the destitute mother that in a case in which there are fifty percent of the time has a child has one of the children right  my opinion based on the stance you know i mean i think the trial court is bound by the walk which says that non custodial if you look through the statute it's constantly restated custom of your parent not custodial parent you justice if you took your position then this picture would have to be amended to provide both parents it doesn't provide it doesn't what would happen and not to analogize too much but i'd like to just make the statement let's assume my client was ordered to pay this court which he was and then she would have no ability to collect it because there is only provisions what he happens when the non custodial parent doesn't pay the statute is clear in the end in that regard i'm not suggesting to the court that everyone can look at and say gee this is a person with no ability to pay which by the way in this case isn't perfect but i believe that if statute if you look at section five zero five is really interesting and i've been doing this for a long time and i understand where you're coming from but if you look at section five hundred five b the the section itself let you understand i don't know where i'm coming from but under section five on friday the the all of the provisions of the act itself go into the issue if you want to deviate from guidelines in other words you have a situation like you've you read it in the proceeding for dissolution under six o war there is a provision that says eighteen a person not related to the child with possession of the child can file an action for custody in for support from both parents parent i think that provision was put in purposely and it's done under both five zero one six zero one which is the custody provision so i i think that's i think that's the reason for that justice but it is your what you have to look at if you're not going to use the guideline if you don't use the guidelines in a quick wants to deviate which it can't then they have to go through all of the a b c d and half and then they're a five differs from the plain language of five zero five five zero five the illinois marriage and dissolution of marriage act is not unclear it is not ambiguous it is plain on this language and it does not take into consideration to study all allocation when considering the best interests of the child and the need to fulfill the duty to support the child the language written five or five arrives at the quitely order either or both parents owing a duty of support to a child with a marriage to pay an amount reasonable and necessary for the support of the child without regard to male misconduct not without regard to custodial allocation and i think it's very important that we think that we construe custody not in the late terms that many of our clients come to us with but what is custody in the custody is decision making authority is not of pronouns and descriptive terms to be used for enforcement the sections use supporting party respondent spouse owing a duty of support it there are sections that it says non custodial but i would say to you is that clearly legislature knew but not the story or could be an issue if they really intended the legislative intent was to preclude and  the recent amendment of the statute which included eight to five point five excuse me which added additional expenses which the trial court has the discretion to allocate so the addition with and i believe the last twelve months we've eighteen months was section two point five the court in this discretion in addition to setting child support pursuant to the guidelines and factors made order of both parties cases of contempt if a parent who is found guilty of contempt for failure to pay with an order support is a person who conducts business or soft employ that's where he goes into the one percent but it starts with a parent found the body of the tax the heart of the statute with which confers discretion on the trial court to a sas child support a section eight which provides that is either or both parties oh a duty of support to the child read a financial expenses for the child there were submitted pursuant to court order financial disclosure statements pursuant to local court rule thirteen point three point one which is a detail financial affidavit which lays out your income and your expenses and all those disclosure forms were submitted seven years ago i think it made me i believe that the ones that the court considered at the time of the hearing were stale but those were the appropriate to get the parties current financial condition i don't think it would necessarily be in appropriate or appropriate i don't believe that it is necessary in this case as we are dealing with such a  car financials that are important in a remand was certainly bring current financials to bear and i think my client would actually be more successful armoring and if current financials were brought to bear the child children are older they have more expenses as she does have possession of the younger child an equal amount of time as she does have possession of the older child more than what was indicated by the appellant although it is not near that which is the younger child but it's for the purpose of for two overnights a month it was even for the time and a typical schedule and he was paying four thousand dollars a month on the allocated support when this portion of the litigation started post to create an al terminated and he commenced paying in round numbers twenty four hundred dollars a month to support for two children which he had possession of nearly fifty percent of the time there was a slow erosion of the amount of support as the case progressed but the fact the matter is there's going to find that my client is merely an employee of all she makes minimal amounts of income anywhere from six to ten thousand dollars a year mr turkey has a history a one standing history of employment at the same company and earns in round numbers close to  hundred fifty thousand dollars a year nothing has changed for the child here the best interest of the child still needs to be addressed the youngest child all this change in his life with all this litigation is that he spends two extra over her month with his  well decision affirming the appellate court in this case open up a situation where in the typical situation custody is what's looked at in the term in child support or we're going to open up the be opened with this because this is a typical and ninety percent of the cases that move through the court system are typical you have a residential parent who has possession of the children also fifty percent schedules asinine agreement of a party are hard to come by by court order so something like this is still atypical and when you have your typical case you go back to the legislative history or visitation period could it be used to say hey if the best interest is going to be used then the best interest should be used in each and every circumstance and then we take we take a look at again come again rather than decision making authority to tie decision making authority to monetary benefit or obligation i think would have even more disastrous effects you will have people the money party driving again for custody because it has monetary outcome for them that they will not make could be prescribed for having to pay support and that will drive litigation not for the best interest of the child time decision making authority i get to decide where the child goes to school therefore i don't have to pay you support or even wash your you have a joint custodian for any number of reasons could decide that this parent will be the residential custodian maybe there's a better school district we would have parent has the better ability to take the strip our trial courts of the discretion to look at a case and assess a case and say this case is a typical this case does not look like the rest of you sitting in my courtroom today i think would have goes for this a more famous host of expenses as a portion of overhead is a portion of groceries of utilities have gas in the car let's go to the movies on friday night so how is it different than  time and clearly is what the appellate court wanted to have a basis for why the support was ordered although i think the man although not sophisticated can be followed pretty easily twenty four hundred dollars a month was guide for two children take it down fifty percent for one child and then you have it again for fifty percent of the time you get down to six hundred in round numbers so it's not a sophisticated thing and not everything we do on a day to day basis is sophisticated but i don't  the lifestyle excuse me of the child on par with when he is with his father economic marginalization of a child economic marginalization of a parent is a very serious consequence consequence in custody i find it in plain language five or five words says the court may order either or both parents own a duty of support and then under sub one even when it lays out the guidelines it says the percentage of the supporting parties now become doesn't say not to start a parent drawn and they're probably trying to allow for the discretion of the court consider the how to satisfy the duty of support go to the child and i we read out all of those and i don't have counted but eight different references to the term noncustodial we read that of statute i don't even think you need to read them out any more than you need to read out how a respondent is specifically served with a notice that he had to pay child support to suggest that it isn't absurdum mr lying suggestion to this court as he would take each sub paragraph and that's a paragraph is definitive but i believe that that create creates a personal interpretation and wording within the assets that the non custodial has to bring forward how do we read that under your interpretation i don't get there and it could be either parent i believe i honestly believe so because in the language right above it is says that the court may further order any part of the earnings of a parent during a sense of periodic imprisonment if a parent is found guilty of contempt i think that it is perhaps a poor choice of words or reduction of words b and added the additional allocation of expenses they would have done it that they want to said without regard to marital misconduct they would have said without in consideration of historial allocation for social work but decision making authority does not analogous to an remarriage of reading and the focus on the idea that because it was a temporary custody a work makes this not analogous misinterprets the case at hand that those are the terms of the statute you're right i apologize and i met our language has evolved within the practice from visitation to parenting time it's rare that we put visitation and any agreement or even temporary custody there because they had the parties had a history of noncompliance with court orders and she wanted to keep a leash on the case and have the people back in court the court there specifically found though that when she ordered evil visitation between the parties but gave father temporary custody and ordered him to pay child support to bend the temporary not to study and it was not erroneous there was no question that the support was necessary because there was a disparity and an earnings shot is not what i think is limited by its facts you had a parent in a different state but a history of not seeing her child no voluntary support no should not go to the non custodial parent but the qualify that because in this that case limited to those facts because see no reason why they understood even in the context of shock that there could be a parenting time of the child and their expenses to be had with that she's been found to be unemployed while she is nominally come and mr turner has significant income comparatively it mount order is enough to keep her being able to provide for the child not in a similar lifestyle quite frankly but enough so that that child is not marginalised and that she is not marginalised and can meet with a little bit more resources the care which means that they meant to deny custodial parent is the parent that pays support the pronouns used in the other sections don't contradict the limitation of support only to the more income you are going to completely this state should never put a band the bed in anyway you can read the statute from the front to the bit it portended one thing the custodial parent is also the period that receives the child's statutes written like that because the united custodial parent pays a percentage of is your own net income they have set for the custodial parent the non custodial parent can ask for a deviation from the guidelines either up or downward based upon the respective incomes of the parties so that in the court would climb to the mediation if you're hearing and determining what the amount of guideline support would have been and how far they want to deviate but this is nothing more than a maintenance order disguised as a child support order that was entered by a judge which icac which i believe contradicts the statute if you look at the if you look at the is such that you can't order on a custodial parent this duty of support is being discharged by the fact that he's paying all of the expenses for the child to pay child support to a non custodial parent u dance around that point any way that she pleases but they are sweet shots at it's a fifth as your case and it's probably the closest case to this case all the facts are not analogous to accept this argument would read out the sixteen times a a situation where frankly we are arguing the effects of mr kind of brought up with clients inability to support herself she lives in a six hundred thousand dollar ohm which is provided by a trust from her or her brothers and her family she doesn't financially and then order him to pay the nad to still be a parent even though she has a certain amount of time with one of the children support as well i would suggest that if you look at that you can  rent which was raised by council because in cesar already it was a six month water of temporary custody which would have been under fire on one of the air and not under five will fry five on one gives you a lot more discretion because that's when temporary orders are honored and the court can allocate expenses until a judgment is entered custody decide when someone gets custody soul and complete custody the other side pays support in a certain amount whether it's guidelines whether it's under guidelines whether it's over guidelines in this case to me it was clear in the trial court i didn't get a chance to argue with the appellate court because they ruled but i think it's clearly a case that needs to be reversed it will cause nothing but  back in the domestic relations division because it in fact will minuscule in the entire statute justices i would ask you to read it carefully go over our brief go over the