proceedings on all issues except that the marriage remained dissolved and mr reynolds retained her maiden name that same order this number second two thousand and eight order vacated the terms of the september judgment with respect to in july of two thousand night she thought it was time to increase our support as mr smith had returned to full time employment and his previous job the march fifteenth two thousand and ten order gave the parties mr smith's child support or really just mr smith actually for all this is on appeal the standard of review is where there is an abuse of discretion or against the manifest weight of the evidence for the trial court in order to have some language addressing the stability that this family could provide for the child however there is legal authority that stability only control when there is an adverse influence on the child and there is no presumption that stability or lack thereof has been and first influence on the child and actually of those cases upon the known to the case and then  living with her significant other however there was also testimony that mr smith after they separated he did not provide any child support or maintenance to try  support this reynolds or the child and she after they separated she started having a relationship with her significant other but they were not living together are after they were divorced is that kember two thousand and eight over she was receiving no support from mr smith she moved in with her significant other they are still together they were together at the time of trial they moved out of the apartments into a bigger house with three bedrooms i'm not space for the child and them she's trying to live or trying to improve the environment or the child it seems like the kind of case that the issue of downward deviation from the statutory guidelines he was only pays them and seems that instead of twenty percent i take an old into consideration that the back case law i think it's clear that this was against the manifest weight of the evidence that this randall's could provide the more stable relationship in fact the g m noted that if mr smith continued to work those hours that that's not providing a stable relationship mistake one virus for the child also in the winter of two thousand i did two thousand and ten he didn't repair furnace he was he was fully that goes against what joint legal custody meet this joint parenting and making decisions jointly mr smith time in his in his brief fight to the dusty case that it's not one point that concerns whether in a joint parenting agreement mediation provision should be mandatory rather than discretionary here the joint parenting agreement has the mediation provision so gets final word but not this decision making but i'm just vacate at least portions of the original judgment dissolution marriage mrs reynolds i'm proud the petition to be open that with respect to child support maintenance and the division of property o grand city along she was not receiving any support she had limited me at that time she after and she was seeing her significant other with their she now lives but they were not living together the lived in this rentals were divorced she then moved home to missouri he found her same notion opposing removal she moved back she had no means so she moved in with her significant other they've been together all this time she doesn't see other man there was no testimony to that back and they've now living in a house and they were at the time of trial again  provision in case the parties cannot resolve the dispute that there is there is required mediation provision in the joint parenting order that the with the court's order joint legal custody but mr know as it turned out this case was tried and i guess less than that by probably as something something of that nature but nobody knew that was the case that would necessarily be the case i mean things happened during  fed statement that matter there's no basis for overturning that decision because this court cannot listen to that all bus long statement because it doesn't have the cd from judges in the jury  so all the evidence indicates someone who understood his rights understood what it was doing understood the questions made a voluntary statement all the evidence to the record and probably all the evidence that  and blue point zero one zero one now that's over the legal limit for driving on a but it's not a level that makes a person incapable of understanding parking it wasn't just a matter for the jury the judge had to decide whether a bush was an expert everyone agreed that he was an expert on crime scene investigation but whether he had expertise in other fields and so when the judge still defense coun that something was relevant that was entirely appropriate because it was an issue in which the judge had to decide and the judge and had to determine what was relevant in the specific things the judge said wasn't relevant was and yet he had testimonial bush did not just that he read a book one time and did one case that was specific that he had done over five hundred murder and other investigations for the only state police over twenty plus year career of analyzing