they're now ages sixteen twelve and nine they're busy active involve children i plan has residential custody of them the court in its decision set child support at a thousand dollars a month rather than the statutory amount of one thousand four hundred and thirty three dollars a month during the two year temporary period in this case the temporary order had downward in establishing child support and we believe that in this case there were absolutely no compelling reasons to justify a deviation downward in child support marriage of stanley which is a case of cour expenses in her off any actual affidavit the court trial court in its decision acknowledged that my client would be paying the children for most of the children's expenses including their extracurricular expenses resided with rebecca and that she was therefore going to provide for most of their needs including their extracurricular activities there was nothing in the back or it was a pretty substantial whacker going on in terms of the part of separation because it year he made about eighty two thousand dollars a year so there were symptoms or similar now in terms of their net income there was a bit of a disparity there in part because he is a up police officer and his deduction for his retirement income for three children for good reason because it believes that that's what it should be and there's taste of that says you gotta give us compelling reasons why you should deviate down work in setting child over thirty two percent figure i believe there are any compelling circumstances and he did not mention or who did not in his decision addressed the fact that he had a two hundred forty one thousand dollars non marital brokerage account my point didn't have any ny marital assets not one thousand two hundred ninety dollars which is what the judge in the temporary worker said it on and whether said it was one thousand four hundred thirty three dollars a month it's the attribute i believe it was thirty eight hundred dollars in income from so that was a mention but in terms of going through his decision and take yes he had that in terms of analyze wind t v down no he did not and in terms of other decisions in this case  received more than fifty percent of merrill assets and the court did not did not in allocating things out fifty percent you did not say there was no weight given to the fact that there was this large  brokerage account and i believe that in light of the expenses of these children the burdens that my client has financially of these children of maintaining a house and by the way this is a house that she had little choice but to say i need this house because she had three children that she had to support she didn't have any choice but to pay real estate taxes on that on the house and so forth and during this two year period of time par separated there was no evidence that he lived his life in any kind of way suggestive of not happy adequate funds to entertain his children which is one of the things that the judge talked to entertain his children and to be able to participate in school activities absolutely no suggestion that that didn't happen during the interim period there was testimony about vacations he took there was testimony of powers on trips with the children about going to sporting events with the children about a five thousand dollar boat motor of it he purchased about large amounts of money being spent on duck hunting about purchasing ammunition about loaning a friend nine hundred dollars a month there was no suggestion that his yes and my point is supporting a household of four and he is supporting a houseful of wife and this is not a case where we have to share his total range then he averaged about four nights a month with these children and we have a sixteen year old boy a twelve year old boy all of whom are play substantial sports there like three sports figures kids i don't think that's a compelling reason to justify a t v station downward again all were asking for is an application of that which the legislature said it was appropriate here and then and then a deviation downward of thirty percent as opposed to pure white my talking to five percent for what the trial court to the by the fact that the child support was reduced by four hundred thirty three dollars mom and case law indicating that there there should be some equitable considerations on that and the court the trial court indicated she was basically were some other factors here in terms of division of property one of them had to do with a purchase six months before trial of the vehicle by mr  the amount of roughly forty three thousand dollars that vehicle ended up getting valued at trial at thirty three thousand dollars there had been an accident the parties had insurance that was twenty four thousand dollars proceeds of insurance that were invested in the city itself along with a some kind of a tax incentive a twelve hundred dollars tax them and the party's credit card points as it turn out there was the under the court's allocation there was eighteen thousand dollars attributed to this vehicle in terms of equity to mr burke right my client on the other hand who had purchased a pia cole shortly before something well we are just breaking down that value should be attributed to the vehicle and in this case it was not furthermore in this case there was bank account believing that that was the right thing to do that the money should be deposited and the court should address it mr program i received a couple words relating to some one with the city of springfield that netted out to be about thirty eight thousand dollars after attorney's fees fourteen thousand of that money was spent during the separation of the parties i believe that that constituted it dissipates and that he should  of the other money that was drawn from this account and that which mr polk right said he did with this money was i paid attorney space i went on vacation i paid my duck hunting fees the client with eleven thousand dollars in fees that was not a draft in terms of the equal allocation of property that the court said it was attempting to do the court said it was attempting to equally divide property and i believe that in light of a number of factors including this vehicle including attorney's fees including the manner in which certificates of deposit which were it becomes one hundred percent vested in march it was about in december there was a contribution made after the trial also and then my client's position terminated she went to someplace else because so close so as a result i percent vested the amount of the value of her account as of the end of december two thousand and ten was not yet known because the plan did not issue the statement showing that until march but there was a value to it their contribution was not yet published that they were going to be making a contribution for her two thousand and ten employment so all that was going to burn marks was basically a statement telling what the value of her account was as a december of two thousand and ten not reserve jurisdiction you just said we'll get that number and we will fortunate between the parties equally or maybe just spent in fact by the time yesterday's memorandum opinion that number w depends on the number of factors but in this particular case i the difference in this case is that there really isn't any any evidence in this trial because i really didn't think that this was an asset of any significance the taco and again he had a car accident there was a replacement of his vehicle the replacement was this taco it was not forty three thousand dollars that he paid for it very seven thousand dollars for it all then having to tr paychecks i'm talking about from his full time job plus overtime with the police department his second job working security for housing projects i have all of that those funds didn't total what his living expenses were he needed to draw cash from somewhere else and he drew cash from somewhere else he drew from the worker's comp some of the time some of the time he pulled it from his non marital account because while he had the shortfall for his own living you do well sanction in your case which in which there was no support order there are some other cases where there's a reduction in support thousand six hundred twelve dollars a month which is over sixty five percent of their total income and mr berger has three thousand four hundred seventy nine dollars a month which is a little over thirty four percent of their  having the children four nights a month or something like that there was testimony at trial about first of all the evidence of what is your station schedules going for that secondly there was testimony on his part about efforts he had to do his visitation with the children market value so last years it increased in value and the other thing was that he received his workers compensation money and so there was a any produces a result of him receiving the worker's compensation money but in terms of him being able retirement monies rather than by way of cash initial we're going to order had paid to her off in cash and quite frankly made this situation we thought a bit more fair to our client because she would have twenty eight yes it can be a twenty eight thousand dollar transfer of retirement money and the reasons that the court gave her changing its decision were backed someday they were each in its assumption wise going to have to pay twenty eight percent taxes on this years before they were received retirement monies are a good thing but in light of the fact that my client was going from one thousand two hundred ninety a month in child support to one thousand dollars a month for child support and know h expenses were covered by what she was getting in child support but that was important to have that money again this is a gentleman who has two hundred forty one thousand dollars and nine your last it's my client didn't have anything nothing in terms of cash to turn to to make sure the house expenses format and so on and so forth so i believe that the court's decision to change its decision in to have her at twenty eight thousand dollars equalization payments and instead make that  right now but the bad time she went from she went from so to speak for planning and they have very different retirement so i mean it wasn't like there was an additional some paid her for her work from january to april that that didn't happen  he got fifty percent of every single thing that she had the same was not the true not true with respect to her interest in his pension which is a defined benefit in your degree there was an equal were funded with monies that were put into a short account then c d s were funded periods of time in the past after that same account number that mr right during the course of proceedings withdrew the monies from and used things like vacations or things like attorney's fees things like hunting trips those sorts of things the court said those c d s were non marital with the children i think he's left kids no question about that and he went to their sporting events and things of that sort but the pressure in this case was replete with my he testified if you hunted thirty to forty days a year the record was replete with my client using all her vacation time and everything else to take these kids to their sporting events driving them up and down the road doing their school activities being one of the mom's maids the spaghetti dinner she was the mom who