illinois law in fact there's a there's a case that neither side cited but it's blister vs blister i'm sure counsel they only counsel is aware of it because it's an illinois supreme court case that says that when you're talking about child support transport can never be abundance of creativity took a case me supreme court in two thousand and four in rogers and applied that this case in attempting to pull my client's current husband not the father of the the minor child his income into but that's really neither here nor there nor is that important it can be ten thousand dollars it could be a million dollars that really shouldn't enter into the discussion at all the question is whether or not it's appropriate under illinois law for the trial court to reach out with third party to say i'm going to accuse the income of this third party onto the parent and force this parent then to pay any of this that the parent is simply not capable of and the reality here is that there hasn't been an attempt not even once in his case fifteen if you will what's what's wrong with the arrangement that the trial court got right that it's really just a thousand dollars a month and that the other two thousand will be can be knew down and if i can encourage my mom not to show up this month will you buy me that there and that is a problem of beef we've certainly countered in the inverse are the fact of the matter is if travel is in fact to be considered because at the end of the day you are if there is no visitation a month he gets three thousand dollars and so if he spends five thousand dollars in attorney fees fighting a visitation order and he gets two thousand dollars as pocket just indicated that down she has no reservations about paying child support so where would that child support payment come from or she's not receiving any income the judge to calculate that what that amount should be i think that  a change of circumstances then the child support obligation is reduced accordingly absolutely are and if she were receiving dollars in hand rocks would apply if if mr hastings were giving her money absolutely on a monthly basis saying here's a few thousand dollars a month unemployed a mother of three children two of whom are younger than two years of age and lived with her she simply doesn't have the capacity to earn one hundred eighty thousand dollars an hour she just does not exist in is to what  i'm willing to give you up to forty five hundred dollars a month to travel because your other daughter but i'm not willing to give you three thousand dollars to give here ex husband to support that very same doctor best that's a great question and the answer is that since prob me ask you this what what kind of income which she have to be making to be obligated pay three thousand dollars a month that's easy you would simply best buy that every fifteen thousand dollars a month and that would be  i see is the built in incentive in the way the order was constructed that it's one of i understand that the judge thought it gave an incentive to have visitation but couldn't it given  profile in that it was an order that was void as of its entry and that it is not supported evidential it's also been challenged on a motion for reconsideration that was enough so i think that found the outset the waiver of child support entirely because she was saying i'm spending a lot of money traveling here and i'm sure you want to travel here and i've been doing it quite frequently throughout the year let's agree that i don't pay child support and  six years which was fair who mentioned if indeed it's appropriate that's a six year expenditure for attorney fees not a single year expansion or are you going to some extent this problem was brought on by the failure to provide financial information that ms hastings mrs hastings and or her husband could provide mrs hastings did provide financial information frankly mr hastings isn't subject to the jurisdiction of this court bar he's a third party