facts at their hate when listening to the evidence of the parties reducing his decision to writing there seemed to be a little bit of confusion about what actually in the court specifically disregarded interested in him that she had dividend income that she had as well as withdraw from investment account that she had all of those parties were made or free in that case he had income coming in and over time a result to last the court disregarded this despite the fact that business income is supposed to be considered under section five hundred and five in that considering that information the courts determination of child support was an abusive discretion fact that he lost his job and i have discussed that later but taken as it is the trial court's ruling said we're going to consider his income as his base salary at our medical which was seventy one thousand four hundred dollars that's what was stated in the party's agreement has the base income that's what was stated out potentially this these only exhibit from bar with stated his base income and they show their kids again i would say that actions speak louder than words his progress at that company had actually substantially improved better bargain acknowledged that his production was improving those aren't facts despite the fact he's misled them again the current documents will tell you affidavit he contacted the paid medical supply companies that he was eligible to apply when he applied for jobs that really wanted to meet his area just in hopes of having any substantially less but he gave him some money and the money was verge of the when he was really getting unemployment benefits which were going to be ready out and that is also a little significant went through respect from his job plus he got granted unemployment benefits they found a better job in a larger metropolitan area but there is no evidence that they think he should have applied for more jobs but there is no evidence that there was any other job available from which he didn't apply the you know a lot of us can look and see when we're really stressed our feeling i feel my gosh i should've put more time in on this three i should have been very prepared for trial all of those things that you g was not borne out in terms of the documents by barge that that was a particular concern of theirs and that was not something that because i do have to fight his separation papers  essentially says i'm granting you the increase or decrease for the reduction in eighteen that i did he get that thirty two percent where he would have been doing it for two kids presumably there would have been a reduction so yes i think that's probably correct if you look at it that way which which would be in error which is part of also problematic as much as i point out in my brief because it doesn't try where application of the income seniors number and the after finding of the income that the court made related to that the court had to set child support as of the time of trial and there had to be an amount determined i mean i propose the court could decide nothing is going to change it so the amount is the same but i think because the child age out that was  to properly imputed income in the court determines that a change in employment is motivated by desire to evade a support obligation here gene testify that he no longer was motivated at work and specifically for the court proceedings including hearings involving an order of protection for interfering with his motivation and give a fit of a support obligation is essentially a credibility determination and the trial court's order referred to gene's lack of credibility specifically in part of the trial court found that gene lacked credibility regarding his job search because he could not recall the name of any of the companies he interviewed with this credibility terminations should not be which was motivated in part the court could probably find in an effort to abate his support obligation and that is one of the if the court finds that child support  home is considered so is the income shares model at this point so it is a different way to calculate child support are not considered income for purposes of child support in the two thousand and eight case and remarriage bohdan jennifer's investment income withdrawal is analogous to an ira withdrawal and therefore also should not be considered income regarding genes income it unsuccessful efforts to get gene to cooperate the transfer in a loan to her name so she could make the payments the finance company would not speak to her if she was not alone holder and communication for counsel was ignored her only option was rely on gene to make the car payments when he failed to related to the vehicles gene argues that he cannot be responsible for half the purchase price of the ford fusion the replacement vehicle because he did not agree to its purchase jean ignored jennifer's repeated attempts to discuss the purchase of a vehicle for the part children by entering into an agreement that he would discuss and agree upon a vehicle jennifer gene implicitly agree that he wouldn't gauge in the process gene made the agreement process the possibility of a refusing to respond to our knowledge jennifer's communications starting the car purchase because gene failed to follow through with his informant to engage in the process in good faith he made an agreement regarding the car purchase and possibility therefore it was appropriate to hold him responsible for half the replacement vehicles purchased price because she didn't have information from gene she kind of signed help from the court rather than resorting to self help she couldn't defile the motion to compel information she could have subpoenaed that she did not have and i think jurisdiction over these matters that's how you get relief it can act relief is required however i think in this case because of the timing of every play with respect to that journey to court does many of jurisdiction to adjust