issues they were all financial and child support the first issue i want to address is child support we're talking about both what is what's current support and in order for has support based on the time between filing a motion asking for child support in the courts final order the issue really is whether the court used the right formula to calculate child support statute applied stated that all calculations of child support after july first two thousand and seventeen would be the income sharing as opposed to the old method where it was a percentage of the non custodial parents in comp significant facts in this case is that the two parties had two children care coup was born march twenty seventh  hundred eight he reality turned eighteen before the child support order was entered and kyle september first two thousand was the birth date and he will soon turn eighteen yards the court under the new law was to take both of the parties income added and then applied a percentage to each party's income that was affected for all calculations after july first two thousand and seventeen the original judgment of dissolution of marriage going back to july two thousand and thirteen provided that the children were week by week switching between the parties home depot's live and around my knowledge illinois and the courts specifically had a clause providing as said a sixty six in the record that no challenge was going to be paid by either the new law apply that you income average to determine how much child support is to be paid the court was wrong and its finding that this was decided before july first two thousand seventeen the court relied on first by saying in that paragraph sixteen of the order that you would you're looking at bed the new laws pacifically states in act one of the new law in itself is not enough for modification when said it was were not contending just because there was a new thought the original judgment dissolution of marriage said no child support part and parcel among a lot of things it changed the court actually entered order in february of two thousand and seventeen now saying that you mean minor child because the other one is just turned eighteen full time parenting responsibility was granted to mr head as a result of that we now needed to calculate a new child support the issue is how do you apply wh well the last clear that after july first two thousand and seventeen if the court does any calculation for child support it must apply and come averaging but at paragraph sixteen of its order the court said nine one reason they said because just because the new law doesn't mean it's modification as we said that wasn't the basis the basis was that in february you now changed custody and full time custody went to heflin so now he's entitled to child support he actually had asked for my education child support back in april of two thousand and sixteen but it took all the way till february of two thousand and seventeen before th the parenting responsibility changed so when did the court decide to when were the issues and information presented perhaps the best way and clearly the best way not perhaps is looking at the court's own docket entries at a fourteen including our brief to see eight forty seven there's the court's docket entry of may fourth at a time when the case was set for resolution of all issues which would have included child support the court and the docket entry that says the party with the specter of attorneys appear parties affirm in open court that in lieu of oral testimony today each side will submit it position statement along with supporting exhibits by june fifteenth and he side may file a written response to the other position statement by july fourteenth well i agree in the normal circumstances for that however under there were certain exhibits in our post in this in the record our post trial memoranda are our host file and the one that we do take it under advisement but the court rules as to whether this is in evidence in this case nothing was in evidence until july fourteenth the documentary that went on is you under no it was all submitted your case if i didn't mention i read fitter but i don't think that case is a political because it wasn't and on that issue it was decided in two thousand and sixteen a case decided in two thousand and sixteen can't control whether how a new law effective july first two thousand seven hundred is going to  apply that case was on child support formulas but not on this one it took a death case talked about using the wrong formula but the case in itself evidence and having all the activities as to what was the make up the child support closing two thousand and fourteen it's a case in two thousand and fifteen when a new statute was in effect in this case the new law says differently it doesn't say changing it says any time a court does a talk in lation after january first two thousand and seventeen in this case there was no calculation prior to when the court took the matter back from the clerk's office on july seventeenth two thousand and seventeen there wasn't this wasn't a recalculation this wasn't a change this was a calculation of child support to be paid by one part the other for the very first time it's just absolutely distinguishable from the cold case it doesn't the new law doesn't say let's look at what your income was for the past three years and average it says after july first two thousand and seventeen if you are determining child support court you have to use income support any time after january july first two thousand and seventeen you must use the income share it doesn't talk about well if there's other evidence that it previously been sharing it doesn't even say if you heard evidence which they didn't it doesn't say if you had a hearing that what state didn't it says if you calculate child support when were these sports calculations done they had to have been done after july seventeenth two thousand and seventeen simply because up until that time the court didn't take anything that the party said into consideration i mean if you look at the documentary made for it tell you that that's when the court made  calculation that should have been your pro create law cases distinguishable from the cold case where the new law on fifteen just changed percentages in the manner in which you were going to apply but this one didn't change that this briefs and then subsequently of spin subject to reliance by the other party to make objections to the proof to make objections to the evidence evidence is not submitted in this case until after the second briefs that were due and the court took the better back under it by and your honor i'll continue to go over this issue are i like to have it thank you the second issue is the part of the court's order they awarded had made a motion for nine minor child support related to oldest child erik have the court awarded the fights twenty nine account for to be directed to higher institutions of learning college university if in fact and because it's magic on appeal because nothing has happened with these accounts it's been stayed pending appeal mr have one takes this money and does anything other than spend it through a higher higher institution of learning will result in tax consequences for both these parties that's not what the law allows us to five twenty nine hours further there were there was no it's not submitted are you directed to this is the yes you can get room and board you can get expenses you can get transportation expenses under statute but you need to put on some evidence to show what it is he didn't put on any evidence that there's no documentary evidence  no referring in the record and their position statement are in the reply brief not resubmitted that this short that exhibit twenty seven is a listing of the transportation expenses so you got the quote was wrong in dealing with the five twenty nine account i please the court counsel i would actually like to work and were forced order so first addressing the tax issue who better to know then the trial court that he award guess the trial court knew that miss houghton was ordered to pay back support and because of that he still won because of the circumstances in the case and the circumstances and the advents and the facts of the case that the trial court knew he awarded my client both tax exemptions for two thousand and sixteen going forward guidance clearly supported that the petitioner provided the majority of the support for the children he was owed back support over twenty thousand dollars and there was other evidence and should have been awarded all the tax savings simply paying the statutory child support amount if misshapen would have but she hasn't to this date paid that does not automatically entitle her to any type of tax benefit that's still an obligation i that's still a decision that the trial court gets to make and the trial court made that and that issue should not be reverse now going forward starting with the child support calculation as you can assume i'm going to rely heavily on the cold decision that i cited the courts rather dated august seventh august seventh two thousand and seventeen states that mishap one failed to space to prove her case said the new child support statute should be used here as you stated your honor exhibits were submitted by june fifteen anything that was filed after that was argument well was in response to the exhibits that were already submitted the old calculation should have been applied and was applied and that ruling  in regard to the college expenses the five twenty nine accounts the first argument is regarding the issue that the i r s states with the five twenty nine account should be used for and i completely agree with back but the trial court awarded those accounts to my client that doesn't mean that he can just use them for whatever he wants to do with them but he gets control of them in regards to how he spends those for his sons he has a younger son  of the older son at this time that was the one that the five twenty nine account was awarded and then he also has high or younger son i also believe that there's other ways you can spend the five twenty nine he might bear the tax consequences but that's his bearing too to deal with in regards to the issue as to whether or not lived with him there was no evidence disputing the fact that eric lived with him there was a capacity hearing involving the younger child in february of two thousand and seventeen that child went through and in camera interview with the judge at the time it was the same judge that made this ruling the the trial had the end camera he was in he was in high school i'm going to say fourteen or fifteen your honor but i can't recall that this is as you know this is kind of been a little gaited case for quite some time and the trial judge has been involved in the s and has  numerous experiences with the parenting issues we had a trial we had a hearing on the parenting issues when numerous parties testified both parties testif thirteen d d states that reasonable expenses can be paid if the non minor child is living with a parent and those expenses include food utilities and transportation there has been and as you can see in the walker there were several instances numerous instances where we said i have one failed to pay ordered expenses not only specific money orders where the judge said you pay x amount but there were also numerous times where you're supposed to divide this expense or divide that expense and she's continue to fail to do that my client continued to provide her expenses and pay probus ordo were supposed to but this it never happened who better to know that than the trial court and that is why he then awarded him this five twenty nine some as a  some payment for these expenses post seven fifty i'll see yes five dash five thirteen kind of the final issue and they're kind of together i know that there's two separate issues and revolving the eighteen t v expenses and then the medical one extra curricular activities first let me address the a t m t cell phone expens obviously judge the trial court believe that those were related to education he ordered mishap one to reimburse my client to pay those expenses we all know that children can use our phones for pots of things kids are allowed cell phones in high school these days they use them and so that having a graphic calculator they have their cell phone you don't have to pay three hundred dollars for a graphic calculator anymore you have your cell phone and that's what you use the trial court agreed that that was an educational expense and that's how one should have to pay for half of that with you i believe it to abuse of discretion on a group the other issue is that it specifically all about timing and work on your work it's all about timing basically in regards to these expenses my clients amended numerous exhibits of receipts payments cancelled checks and this is in regards to the a t m t expenses and then also the other issue that mishap when appealed in regards to expenses and fees my client submitted the expenses and her request that's fine but she did submit them she also said medical expenses for school actual curricula and the such how about the trial court and if you look at his seven page ruling goes through it and he specifically shows where her expenses some of them and not all of them because she's awarded some some credit too are out of date this case these right against have been involved  in this process for a long time there were temporary orders and then there were prominent orders entered and those orders at certain times pacifically stated who should pay what and what was being reimbursed i'm there were specific orders specifically on june thirtieth the court ordered resigned to pay the amount of two thousand two hundred eighty two dollars then there were specific orders stating that that amount is in regard to deafen expenses for different timing however that the the majority i what we said submitted was outside the timing to allow for those expenses to be reimbursed there was a time during this process on a temporary order that mr have gone was ordered to pay child support at that time the parties weren't spreading things they weren't splitting expenses he was paying child support she s were seats for those expenses and there were specific orders that specifically stated why takes the court what order we can burst for it's all about timing and the trial j the court awarded him the five twenty nine counts first can't do it legally but secondarily he did it and there was no evidence as to what exhibit show these expenses he was relating it to we raised that issue as he sees fit that's the new standard now in using that so he can use that money for his own reimbursement not to a institution of higher learning could result in task watch once is for both parties the issue of parenting and custody parenting responses not true counsel says she's going to rely on a cold decision should rely on a cold decision she says we got to him by june fifteenth it was before that not right i've already explained the argument didn't do that you know and i regret we respectfully disagree with counsel that this was a real reason decision it was a long one he said what he everyone said he didn't based on evidence he didn't make any findings he didn't say i'm going to find that the