financially independent i'm here to suggest that mrs turner who become fully financially independent of her house because i've already said we all agree she's a candidate for her permanent  self supporting so if you give her seventy two hundred dollars a month and she takes the collaborators every month and she gambles i don't have the right or interest in saying you should do that but they certainly have the right come to court and say she judge either therefore i want to have my obligation reduced but i think that when you look at the standard of living during the course of the marriage you can consider and perhaps carefully so in the right case whether or not savings are appropriate thing that was developed during the marriage and whether or not that should continue that far different she's saying that it is if she's spending at las vegas or she's having two adult children or she's paying for better or she's doing those say those are not thousand and ten he had no significant increase in income that's absolutely true but the record lows were filed hoxton two thousand yeah i think more importantly is  thousand what's the practical but he said back that he didn't increase your client's obligation he did that and your way or the level that your client agreed to when he was making what he was making during the the standard of living i don't think it's close to lavish if we look at really what was going out of that these folks were effectively bankrupt that is their debt was higher than that i assets yet you houses that have virtually no equity that were anywhere from five to twelve years all they have isn't different to ask the question are you living beyond your means versus you know are you bankrupt i mean are you saying that she should be virtually bankrupt because that's how they were during the marriage absolutely not what i'm saying to the court is i think the fact is however to judge bachmann's assertion that this was some sort of lavish lifestyle during the marriage you mentioned two homes vehicles multiple trips a lot of money spent on the kids regarding you know the trips in the hierarchy and all of that and so they were pretty dedicated to their children spent quite a bit of money related to them is that correct that there's only correct i would have no different when all the sudden you break up a family decisions that people make when they're married space gathered by how they treat their children not the let's move back here and whether or not whatever they're going to support is a little bit different than decisions that are made by alter that position which is kind of where we have our child walk and i mean the problem we have is that he's released her up essentially any obligation to do more than she's doing now and i think that that puts it in somewhat of a different perspective i think it's impossible in these maidens cases to take one case and say what this is just like this because we all know that every case  as counsel noted he filed but did not proceed on his petition to terminate the trial court's decision by justice blackmun which is in writing and part of the record sets out in detail the judge's analysis of the found that the employment that mrs term green had maintained since two thousand and four was appropriate employment the court noted that she had increased her job responsibilities employer the company does not offer health insurance and there's quite a big deal made about that in doctor turned prince harry she has health insurance private plan that she pays less than three involved with the building of a medical practice kind of clinic stablished a satellite clinic in monticello dr turned and was the first physician there it was very demanding part of the strategy of building that clinic involved with founding a soccer league she made a lot of acquaintances in that community and that underscored the development of the practice she also noted in my brief the parties got married e was born so she was there handling the poor taste the home life community interactions and shuttling the boys back and forth to soccer practice some amount of effort was put forward talking about quibbling over the judge's finding that the parties had an extremely comfortable standard of living i think he joined the car clinic association they spent as much remodelling the home and adding to the acreage around the home i say spent on the home so basically they doubled because it's minus so it's in monticello yeah so it was i think they were valuing it around two hundred thousand then they plowed the boys were young and very young they had family only for the membership but the hotels and the restaurants are traveling around the state in that class with the children they had in c double a final for hockey tournaments tickets which is another stance they spent going to see the black hawk hockey games in chicago they attacked the testimony was and they didn't disagree on this they took a number of vacations when the boys were fairly small to disney florida and then when the boys became more involved with hockey they took them to the special hockey summer camps in colorado and then another week the family in the mountains there two of the two older boys graduated from the university of illinois which is again a nice thing that parents can do a comfortable standard of living the oldest boy is married has one child grandchild that she's accused of spending money some tech position the third son didn't go to college except for a few courses at parkland he's still one that has dyslexia and they sent him to private school on the east coast for two and a half years and then they sent him to a special school in arizona some of the kind again sort of a nice thing to be able to he's working as a deputy for pyatt county for the sheriff's department the boys two of the boys the two older ones for living with dr turner in a two thousand and four with the force and i think one was living on campus and one of the boys from living with their mother that time counsel keeps saying that she gave them so she's counting that five thousand dollars in the amount that she spent on the children but she got that amount back so all the boys now are in their twenty's your honor none of them  significant ways of viewing that case even if dr turns income having creased a penny he can't claim that this is an exorbitant amount because he agreed to this abou thought it was within his ability to pay and the statute very clearly says you consider the in home of each of them that's the statute so the judge did not abuse his discretion notice noti that's the reason why the income has gone up you know i ask him i said doctor could you have this job you have if you didn't have your m p if you didn't have your medical degree the sys physician that he was served on the carl board of directors then he served health alliance so it's just sum total like any of our some levels our careers are based on all the lucky when the trial court said yes it is there was no abuse of discretion in that and some of these theories they really never see them in cases they're there they're new to me  she's she has remained in the same house in the same community she's worked a secure job and that was very important you know from two thousand and four t thousand and eleven we had a major recession nation you know so this business she sure gone off and got some other job as i tried to say in my brief but i think she missed it if she had got another job really do want to concentrate on this issue but i think just a stagnant problem it and i'd like you to consider the opinions that were under in the murphy case that we cited where one of the things that the court did do think that there is some some analogy that we need to take those cases in and in the murky case i have bait specifically point on the fact that she had a son and adult son living in a time and agree to that there was the student living during the marriage is it different in that situation we're looking at now i want more and i'm spending money on things that i keep coming back on back but now i want more isn't that different number four that would say it was absolutely ridiculous to have three children and family and travel hockey and not pay down the mortgage there are other people who would say that we are right for my family is far more important than paying down that mortgage because i'll be able to pay it down in the future that is a value judgment that parents are entitled to make when they're married and they're not really that's correct and you've agreed to something value judgments no longer control and a value judgment that says i don't think you should continue to provide internet sesame seeds or luxuries to our our dealt children or spend lavishly unable to understand what that word can possibly need in regard to a grandchild because no dollars that's personal torah how high was the court cope with that in terms of a lady that makes thirty thousand dollars who the income would be well one hundred fifteen or twenty thousand dollars which is taxable if you count her make so that's current shows a tour thousand dollar mortgage and a car loan that's correct i don't know that she's got that much disposable wealth and again i think that doesn't that go into this whole problem that we're you have and let's not forget you got eighty two thousand dollars h the way in two thousand and seven so i mean we have in excess of eight hundred thousand to her not including her ring in about an eight year period and we only have a slight reduction in her mortgage and i greatly she still has that mortgage but those are decisions that she may need to bend so i think need to go there when they were together isn't anything out of kilter well i'm not sure that i quite concur with the court on that but i understand what the court's going but don't you think that she at some point has a you know it's made for meal or is it an entitlement if we're calling it an entitlement then you need to affirm judge wapner but if you want to call