very rightly found that changes in dr lopez's employment were all made good faith originally dr lopez was employed here in springfield with prairie cardiovascular after the divorce shortly programs which run relatively similar to the school schedule so while she may not have been able to be employed full time she may know where her so you can really be employed on her time basis i'm so i don't think that the court finding that she could not sixty three years of age he was a practicing cardiologist and still presently two thousand and fourteen he had begun experiencing some health issues that were no longer committing him to the in the operating room court makes little to no mention of this factor and the court does not even go as far as running a calculation as required by five o four and doesn't make any finding that the application of the guidelines is inappropriate in this case so  parent parties in this case were married for twelve years separated for two so the date of the marriage to the date of filing the petition was roughly ten years and so based on interation formula that is in fifty dollars or she would have been  to four years and four months were made dr lopez has by the time that we went to trial had paid twenty one years of make sense to ms ortiz in his case which is about double the amount of time  the marriage lasted five times longer than the state of shoot provides that he shouldn't that in order to be a factor number six is the property including retirement benefits that was born to everybody each of the parties in the judgment percent of the american states because at the time of the divorce they really were no assets in the marriage there was no home there was a one vehicle of a count thirty four thousand proceeding because it was california where this particular issue originated and california or i declined jurisdiction over the maintenance issues so it is hard for me to believe that in two thousand and seven  counted twice my clients financial after they were chose his monthly deductions the only deduction that is not a deduction from his pay for nonsupport things is the five thousand dollars in maintenance and then of course down here in the minor independent children's expenses we listed that child support amount that he pays them three thousand six hundred and seventy four so we don't count in the deductions that are on the initial pages page three of  when he relocated and i was in california and then in two thousand and two he was making two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and then is made between two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and three hundred and ninety seven thousand a there is a fair amount of discussion about the needs of ms or t's and their honeyed not taking into account what her her real expenses are which are the expenses outlined on her bank account statement are nowhere near the expenses that she lists on her financial affidavit and so even if she does maybe not have five thousand dollars in excess income that there is a significant amount of excess income that  she does have there is also a fairly lengthy discussion in the briefs about this money that she is giving basically to get fifteen to her older son who is not disabled and has graduated with a degree and is lloyd but she has given him in the fifteen month period that i have made statements from over seventy thousand dollars including taking the income that she receives from this program  california and having it automatically deposited into the account that that she shares with and that she acknowledges that she only uses for emergency circumstances and then in addition to that income which automatically goes into his account demises into that account but her nobody transfers money into account with her and so there is no other source of income where andreas was the older son could have been obtained this money from she said andre the only money andreas has into that account is what he earns from his appointment everything else is money supply by her and then of course the same in that same name there were transfers that she made back to her account when she had these emergency circumstances  that she testified about but those that's not a plus one thousand that i was just talking about in the fifteen month period accounts for the fact that she transferred eleven thousand dollars back to herself during that same period of time so  time in addition to the money that you've been talking about his work he's received it is also important to point out that she has a number of benefits from the state of california for margot to have a disabled adult son and she is not even utilizing the state of thousand four hundred dollars a month that she was spending in gas and there is also a respite care services hidden or financial affidavit that she pays them day care child care for people to provide care for marco but the state of california actually provides her with a significant amount of respite care thirty hours of my three hours respite care each month to help process the cost of any child care providers really i think it's more a matter of looking at the amounts of money that she is receiving or as a prelude to her in the leisure into her actual expenses the fact that she's moving money off to  o son and then change just the overall change of circumstances the real question is why shouldn't we be looking at that money and amounts of money she's getting as some reason for order and she doesn't secondly if everyone was just going to continue the maintenance obligation that was otherwise already answered by the court in the text i'm still i was not a after marko reached adulthood and even if that is the case margaret was now twenty seven years old so we are well beyond the four years and four months then ms or t's i should have received it worked except that argument that we should not have you have become this until marble became an adult i don't like that argument i don't think that's an appropriate argument i think all that was in the marital settlement agreement was the knowledge made by everybody of what the situation was everybody was acknowledging the situation was that she was probably not going to be able to be employed full time so long as marco island was a minor hearing of that and would be employed in regards to her potential earning possibility that she could do that marco's regularly consistently day program but i agree with that or the amount of money that would probably amount to is probably insignificant as far as an increase goes when you're honest with could which is what resulted in him leaving him going to the state of utah for the period of time because of your time or there are also i would disagree with ms rivlin your statement that this ortiz's income situation was the same in two thousand and seven as it is currently when she did not begin receiving that my s s money until two thousand and fourteen so as of two thousand and seven her only income that i'm aware of was the income or monies that she was receiving from my clients so i  recall him going through the bank statements i outlined in my reply brief is that she transferred seventeen thousand eight hundred and seventy eight dollars from her account to andreas's account and deposited another eleven thousand four hundred and fifty six dollars over that fifteen month period during that same fifteen month period she transferred back to her own account eleven one thousand six hundred and fifty nine dollars but these were not large withdraws these were from time to time she would withdraw money dollars over twenty one years and his it's time for him to be done paying maintenance but in the event that the court disagrees with that i think that the bank statement showing that there are expenses a fifteen months that an average under ten thousand