modify child's or and critically that was filed based upon this two thousand and nine judgment of dissolution of marriage in who third in march of two thousand or shame that's critical because it which was effective january of two thousand and sixteen control and that's despite the fact that that statute specifically says says in section eight hold one were based upon the court's orders in two thousand and nine and the court then and another order with respect to child support in two thousand and twelve so i think yes it does have some some teeth in it with respect to the use of words or in this matter the rules to show cause i think are a different answer issue and one of those was filed before the effective date of the statute in january of two thousand don't think that his any of the ability because the orders of child support are the issue and those were filed well before the new effective date of the statute in two thousand and sixteen so kentucky the findings basically were that the mother has not presented enough evidence and the evidence was was twofold it was presented and then it's one of the reasons i think it would  of the s t you state dispersement unit records and court orders in this set that the payments for child support work to be made through s t you so we had all those records they were admitted they couldn't be contrary josh written in his first decision said basically i need a certified copy of those records and we need findings by the s t you as soon a religion and interest we got him prior to the second decision the the certified records certified by the director of the department of this you apparently that wasn't good enough because he said that other did here that there's a court order requiring you to pay this amount of money and wasn't paid the burden then shifts to the father to justify why that is not an was and then there was the traction in the briefs to that documentary evidence of this not really evidence well that's right it's not but what it did do is i think there are three pages in the record where i say that exactly what and he indicated that the paving history that you presented showed payments totaling one hundred two thousand eighty four dollars and seventy two cents over the life of the case but that it did not friends he's trying to get somebody else to do his job he's trying to get the legislative branch to make a finding of contempt and at that point i think the byrd had shifted to the other side to present reasons case is a troublesome one for many many reasons the parties were divorced in two thousand and nine and then came back to court a number of times prior to two thousand and fourteen on various motions to modify filed by the petitioner is elliott and those were typically granted at one point in  i believe it was two thousand and thirteen there was an agreement on in a rear engine mount that was old and then that i'm out as i recall was incorporated into payment order so payments were being made on  that gets this through up to two thousand working then from two thousand and fourteen on i became involved in two thousand and fourteen mr wilson was already there and we were working through discovery issues as well as the filing of at least one rule to show cause and we got the case set up to have a trial in two thousand and sixteen in the summer of two thousand and sixteen  at that point and you see in my brief and i take responsibility for it i missed that trial we had a scheduling error and i missed that trial is probably the worst case you could ever see and i  accept that responsibility my judgment and also gave mr wilson fees based on that issue but at that point mr wilson had entered by the court a new garnish is a monster truck driver he does he's not paid weekly he's not paid monthly he's paid for performance and so when these amounts are garnished from his wages they're not garnished with anything any regular amount they don't go to the s u with any regularity and it's it sets it up for irregular payments and unfortunately to the petitioner at that time mr wilson had put in place though a new garnish was substantially higher than the previous amount based on his calculations with respect to what he thought was over and then as we work through two thousand and seventeen getting ourselves up to a new trial date finally get skiver your shoes taken care of we've had hearings on the contempt issues i've made the request of those at those hearings because my client wasn't present he lives in order that all the contempt issues be deferred until when we have everybody present for trial mr elliot couldn't defend himself he could present whatever case judge benton agreed with that all the to show causes all the contempt issues were all deferred by the trial court until the actual trial date i believe the judge has discretion to do there then we get through the trial and in this case it's a question of that under the new statute down is it the case the at the child support amount changes is is there a substantial change in circumstances such that mr elliott should have to pay more when you do the math based on his taxes there's no increase so this is based on a new offer and this is the question that does a new walk why i posit the be that's not the issue on a motion to modify it's not whether there's a prior child support judge it's is there a substantial change in circumstances as it says in five five ten such that a modification is warranted we're not talking about this previous judgment we're talking about a judgment on the issue of whether there's a substantial change in circumstances in council but i would argue differences between the new provision in the old provision with respect to a modification of terms or under five ten yes if there is no change with respect to the underlying substantial change of circumstances there is no change there now this sort of there's other factors that the court could consider but i think the court consider those previously anyway it's there's there's a a list it's not exclusive it's not all inclusive the court has wide latitude to consider what is a substantial change in circumstances but the underlying measure is if there is a substantial change in circumstances judgement and after doing the math did not find that there was a substantial change in circumstances percent ok and i would give you under the old statute if this court were to find that the old statute applied mr elliott would end up paying more ok but under the new statute and i believe it is a new new statute that applies under eight zero one b i think the banning court got that one wrong they they consider the wrong issue the new the new statute is the one that ends up applying  clause which makes the any any change in prospect if after it's date it ok ok i understand that so i guess what i'm getting at is what is it with respect to the mo that we've been given you take the wife's income you take the husband's in you you figure out their net based on their taxes based on their tax returns it's strictly numerical at that point for what the happened in this case he didn't end up paying less he ended up with the exact same amount and based on the fact that he'd end up paying the exact same amount judge fintan found that there was no substantial change in circumstance to the rules to show cause just to go back to that briefly both parties have filed motions to modify both parties put the payment amounts at issue then the question becomes over time what is the correct amount that he should be paying we haven't got there yet then we have mr wilson's off guard issue an order which is greatly in excess of what he did previously paying now we have to do and i believe judgment  was correct in doing so and i think if i recall i had requested at trial that one thing we need to do is have an actual accounting to calculate the interest to calculate arrearages if the modification was at all retroactive  do we have to go back figure out new amounts because at this point mr elliott had been paying for a year almost well over a year december sixteenth through to january of seventeen he'd been paying at this increased rate beyond the end what his previous rate had been so those credits that then are owed to mr elliott and we've got to figure out with a full accounting how much money does mr elliott be credited with was this rich paid off and where is the interest where is it applied the the accounting needed to be done it still needs to be done unfortunately now the if you get with the best you and the illinois department of human family services and request that they perform an accounting they do that that's one of the things that they do and it sucks just a simple payment history which expected mr wilson's argument it is a full accounting the payment history doesn't tell you the full story it just says when payments were made and if those are correct you know it lists and arrearage based on what they amount for the arrearages i believe that the two thousand and twelve order that was entered by the trial court included a portion that was to be paid against  this is the daycare mouth that was entered on this stage supposed to be paid this time this is the base child support amount that was entered on this day supposed to be paid this is the portion of the as you payment that supposed to include the arrearages and calculate that those payments as well as interest accruing so and give the full accounting so that we have a complete picture now when the rule of the show causes issues normally what here i mean opposing counsel says the burden never said it with a contempt finding and rule to show cause it's a discretion of the trial court mr wilson's told you never specifically asked trial court do this on this day and i asked the trial court judge we should be fur all of these to the full trial day when my client is here from out of state so we can take care of this all in one swoop and that is what judge did he continued all the rule to show cause hearings until we had the old trial that we had the old trial you and your and i think after this court makes its finding or whatever they're finding it is going to be we're going to go back and get this full accounting of the still hasn't been done yet so the final hearing on this you did not include that there w modification that the trial judge were to find say on the day care amount or our argument was that our client had paid in excess of the daycare fees that he would get a credit for those amounts and that credit retroactive that and as we're often want to do and mr wilson's client had emailed the request for payment let me tell you herself to me and perhaps we need an answer but the extent there is any admissions as to being a rears sure and it was my reading record that was a certain circumstance where there was a mission your client was behind and i know he has an explanation it was or any retroactivity once we calculate the interest then we're going to have to see and it's going to be fully dependent on accounting with respect to the pharmaceutical ms elliott had emailed the request to herself that and that was a request that we would get my client had never received it he had previously mailed her the insurance card for the use of the minor child's health care he'd sent it certified it was returned to him she it contentious parties and they they they can't work together they don't work together there's numerous other issues that obviously are before the court and i'm that's not going to go into so application of the new statute and how they've read one be could do we do believe that the new statute should apply and that because of that that there is no substantial change in circumstances with respect to this judge benton's finding with respect that there's no to substantial change in circumstances should stand additionally because it's a matter of discretion trial court when to have these hearings when to make its decisions i also believe that it was expect as a rule to show cause that the truck work properly exercise their discretion he kicking all of those to the ultimate trial date and then stating well we do need to have an accounting so we can figure out exactly where the money goes so thank you thank you very much  correct about the throwing barbs at one another we are pretty good but if i said that they have never paid the pharmaceutical bill i stand corrected we did have twenty dollars dollars in sixty days you know obviously an appeal followed so that wasn't paid but in any event the the petition to  what he was said in excess of eighteen thousand dollars in wind and that in june or