state and beat them but of course we'll address any issues that you may bring the trial court's april third two thousand and nine memorandum as she failed to present evidence to meet the standards of eckert and co that decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence as the evidence presented at trial did meet those standards the supreme court has stated that a decision for removal is not a simple bright also receive benefits as cindy will directly benefit from them to hawaii during the course of the living cation proceedings cities only job offer him from tiffany's in ma quit her job at the state of illinois based on an agreement with tom to it's to raise a child she had a seventy thousand dollars a year job she had life insurance benefits health insurance benefits retirement benefits she that she would stay home for a fan of of when she returned cheney in the left in october of two thousand and five for hawaii when she returned in january two thousand and nine she found that the marital house was not a place that to go back to live because it was being remodeled mr foley had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and was reciting at its parents house she has had no where to go state with friends rented houses she applied at numerous locations throughout the course of the three year course of the dissolution proceedings the trial court recognized that with her two with associate degrees one in law enforcement and one in social work she was looking at obtaining employment that would pay anywhere from eight thirty forty nine hundred to an hour which would all set the cost of daycare worker the other benefit of employment for cynthia in hawaii is that hawaii offers insurance health insurance for employees who are part time so cindy could work part time and not have to pay for daycare the entire time in obtaining health insurance that's currently the state of illinois writes health insurance benefits for both cindy and annabel who in the next set of factors that we need to look at military years ago and she feels that's where her not the only but friends and the support machine annabel is located one wonders why tom disputes the move to hawaii again they left in october of two thousand and five filed numerous pleadings requesting custody requesting that a visitation schedule be set none of those were ever called the hearing a month since he sent email after email telephone call after a telephone call had me direct letters to restaurant another time they met at chuck e cheese after march of two thousand and six so each went to the marital residence on father's day to have end of elvis it with her father tom refused to come to the car and refused to acknowledge  she wanted this to happen they started the reintroduction there during the course of the actual proceedings and during the time of trial when litigants are oftentimes on their best behavior time missed one appointment in an appear of two thousand and five he had an excess of three years to set up a visitation schedule the only marriage in dissolution of marriage act allows cindy to make decisions regarding the upbringing of her child she feels as though it's  her child's best interest to move to hawaii there's no visitation schedule in place that would prohibit her from being get the courts trial court still denied that request finally let's is a man of significant resources and quite frankly significant time if he doesn't work a flight to hawaii is long but it's a fight he can make and as an ass n f l gets older it's a fight that she can also make the come home cindy so different in that city doesn't have a job like that if she's not moving because a new husband has a job that she needs to move to that state for but still the only statute provides that cindy has the right to the site her upbringing from the parties were doing reintroduction therapy in april of two thousand and nine from april two thousand and one to april two thousand and ten there was no more it's recently started up again and there's been four appointments from april two that is right in that it didn't occur within that time so the city has agreed to continue on three hundred action therapy the judgement the way the judgments written it says that reintroduction here p has a separate paragraph that says reduction therapy shall occur in segment or morgan county and it's a separate paragraph from the time frame of one hundred twenty days that's what we're asking for that paragraph to be written certainly she has the ability to move within illinois but you know different locations that she's always traveled on and the minor child has always traveled since her birth so no specific locations are and no specific timeframes and i would argue that the prohibition is lead to that why child why or why the trial court docket that we don't dispute the net income calculations for two thirds of it give each year by the trial court we feel those are right however it was an arbitrary decision for the trial court to utilize thirty five hundred dollars from per month in child support and the argument is twofold first is the trial court utilized the two thousand and eight income and i would argue that that was an of the two thousand and nine income although projected it was it's a farm year the trial court acknowledged that they were farm leases they were signed the trustee testified that these were set expenses had the distributions that would be made to tom down to the dollar so the first error i believe was the utilization of the two thousand and eight income person the two thousand and nine home especially in my if you look at the increase of income that mean that thomas received from two thousand and six to two thousand and seven two thousand and seven two thousand and eight the biggest increases are seen from two thousand and eight to two thousand and nine so although the trial court t v s downward i still  i believe the trial court simply said how much is too much the thirty five hundred dollars there is no relation to annabel's monthly expenses since these monthly expenses that trial were established at approximately forty three hundred dollars per month plus the repayment of a thousand dollars per month this court has held that oftentimes show expenses are directly related to how much child support person has received since may of two thousand and six cindy only received two thousand six hundred eighty dollars a month in child support so since the initial child support population was done her expenses exceeded chance and of those expenses exceeded the amount of child support or thirty five hundred dollars that's a difference of nine hundred sixty five dollars a month earth proximately eleven thousand dollars a year that the court has deviated downward if you use the two thousand and nine income the court as a has ordered child support of less than twelve percent for tom's minor child and in addition to deviating downward from the monthly income the court in essence deviated downward when it denied cintas requests for child support based on the income that tom received as a result of his so twenty percent of that is twenty thousand dollars in addition to the eleven thousand dollars trial court deviated downward in the regular monthly support and that since the trial support the trial court deviated downward twenty thousand dollars with going down in the most important factor i would argue is the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had her parents not divorced in her parents were together a short period of time during the course of their marriage before the separation colorado various trips together she lived in a household where her father purchased a mini cooper for her mother she lived on a house in lake with her mother and her father her her mom and her dad wanted to remodel the house or wanted to build a log cabin they were just going to demolish the house and the log cabin when those plans fell through her father spent two hundred thousand dollars remodelling the house despite no value to the house the appraisal for an increase whatsoever so if we look at the end of our standard of living have her parents stay together she would reside in house with her mom and dad with available income of one point two million dollars in two thousand and nine instead she resides in a household in two thousand and nine that receives forty two thousand dollars in child support i believe that was the biggest error that the trial court didn't apply the factor of what her standard of living would have been had her parents not  who provides health insurance for in the fall but she still has her secondary insurance through the state of illinois so the state of illinois his cult insurance benefits for a child whose father earned his father receives income by not doesn't work awarded to her is required to be reported back to the bankruptcy trustee and i believe it's extremely important to realize when the that credit card debt or the big groups it's still an open bankruptcy because she filed probably on addressing search the record it's not a major thing but oh accuracy no temporary custody was it filed a petition for various increases in the trial court that's still pending hopefully it would have been finished product in your attention that has not bought the court has ordered interaction with tom and the child now when the child was born for the period a short period of time they didn't travel they were in the presence of other witnesses the personal records and all of the documents that he had from his first divorce first taken out of the house by since petition there was a psychological examination of both parties she found time on the psychological exam and her found time to be delightful and  over she said he had some difficulties focusing on cindy that would be natural sometimes and yet impulse control but that was not a concern she'll recommended supervise child because he believes that he will be a better parent of the child at the present time the child is in every activity known to man she takes precedence she takes all kinds of and come how much is enough she gets thirty two thousand dollars a year she wo she won't take any job which would interfere in if she took a job that would interfere with the child schedule she hit the lottery when she married cabs college for seventeen months thirty two thousand dollars a year and she can't live o what kind of a lifestyle did you develop the trial court said there's no evidence of any extravagant lifestyle there are a number of trips and since this is in this record since the divorce she's been miley i believe three times once for four months she travels about she made seventy thousand dollars a year prior to the marriage won't look for a job now won't help herself no mr scully s to pay and that's why they're asking for a new age for the support educational expenses best twenty seven thousand dollars a year since or anything out of the chalice having the education chalice get in the lessons and it's a determination by if you're a trillion here i mean how much you eat we suggested thirty two thousand is especially especially when she won't go out and even look for a job or do anything except stay home with a child where if you accept periodic there that you're not precluded from increase but we suggest as long as some maintenance is a piece of property that you are precluded you can come in now and say i want demonstrated that he can be a good file with a little time he had before filing a complaint actions that cindy had done nothing but put fear in other people thirty chota forty thousand dollars a month child support adequate for the child not for the mother home won't work there's testimony in th cindy cindy starts this marriage a homeowner forty five thousand dollars of equity in her home she owns a motorcycle she owns a truck shields gestes she's forty years old she works for the state of stays home with the child they decide to site over the title of the marital rights of city's residents to tom to build a log cabin that never happens they start remodelling cindy the thirty six thousand dollars in the joint account is draining she has no means to live other than credit card indebtedness so that's why the dissolution of court does not acknowledge the non marital interest that she had in the residence at lakeside drive in chat long three and a half years of trial counsel seems to suggest that somehow cindy does nothing to support this trial that's akin to saying that a stay at home mother does not support or does not work to care for trial cindy is the sole parent who takes care of me and she's been the sole parent taking care of me on bell since october of two thousand and five certainly for all of her employment opportunities are limited she is dyslexic she's worked the midnight shift throughout the course of her career she describes herself as somewhat socially awkward yet this psychologist dr fry describes in a balance of precious well groomed a little girl cindy and at over age forty done everything to ensure that with respect to the standard of living that you raise just as turner with child support i think that the bush case in the can case stream be different than the fact that we have here first bush was a situation where we had two high income producing parents we had dad who was a doctor in the non custodial parent and mom who was a physician and his remarried a physician the trial court ordered that twenty percent of that twenty percent of his income essentially got paid into a trust in eight hundred one year old it was the non custodial parent who who argued that it was a windfall and the appellate court said no a five hundred dollars isn't a windfall we're looking at the child show me the trial court's award of thirty five hundred dollars as against the manifest weight of the evidence as there is no evidence to establish how how that deviation down works right that with respect to maintenance except in the benefits cindy did accept the maintenance engrossed payment she needed to move on and start a new life with her with her involved and again as i just stated she said she was left with nothing she had no home and same goes a standard of living she has no extra money to travel with this child she has no vehicle he has that she has to ensure that this child survive we're asking for an increase in the maintenance and gross award so accepting fifty thousand dollars we're not asking that for periodic maintenance we're asking that the maintenance and gross