on a july nineteenth ninety order of baiting child support cindy adams argued that the child support was only begun for a period of six months pursuant to supreme court rule two ninety six f and that there after the child support continued to accrue until the the yes that is that is correct as a matter of fact my review of my discussion with the supreme court clerk indicated there were only about four counties that ever adopted supreme court rule two ninety six s and they were primarily down in the the primary focus would probably be in a marriage of corn which is the fourth district court case and there's a line of case the surrounding area where the fourth districts who have the most they have the largest split because some of their circuits had adopted in some the reason for that is that the rule taken as a whole provides for a lot of experimental procedures at the time back in one thousand nine hundred ninety for the clerk to use to track the payments child support to enforce the beauty of child support i would argue that that is that is not it is a procedural requirement of a petition to a big support however pursuant to the illinois marriage dissolution of marriage act any motion or petition relating to support would require the filing a petition and give notice to the person who pays the court the reason another reason why i don't think that this that should apply specifically to this case is that mr adams support was temporarily abated completely under normal circumstances in order to reduce or abate his support it would be his obligation to file a petition requesting that if he had not requested an abatement whether it be by written petition or poorly then the order never would have been entered so it was actually to his benefit that this agreed order was entered with alice the requirement for a petition and notice they were litigating other matters and they entered into this agreed order based on his temporary layoff so i don't think that the requirement for patient petition a notice should be something that is decisive in this case because of the fact that would be required in any other case and you can enter into an agreed order based on something that was not necessarily part of a series of petitions  that agreed order however i would submit to the court that the prior orders of the court which were including disappoint order and the order for withholding specifically said that he had to report changes of employment to the circuit clerk's office within seven oh i'm sorry i believe what you're referring to is there was a record if there was a record entered through the clerk's office there is an order that states that the clerk has to coach the child support records and i believe it that way first to the clerk's bookkeeping function as it relates to the tracking of payments at that time there were no payments being made because it had been abated therefore there would be no need for the clerk to continue tracking payments or to take it in force that measures for a lack of payment because the payments have been it needs to be interpreted and i think the correct interpretation of that word is found in two ninety six that i think that's why it's there and the reason why the reason why i think that is that the supreme court committee when they were drafting my next move would be to argue that it is a violation of public policy to allow mr adams to fail to report employment and assume that because his support obligation for a five year old child was abated because of his temporary out employment no no i'm sorry if it sounded that way i apologize you know i think that the committee comments are relevant to the intent and the intense stuff paragraph f that i believe was to provide guidance to the courts that they are allowed to temporarily  procedural administrative burdens on the clerk's office and i believe that what the supreme court was attempting to do was to give the clerk's office an option of being part of this experimental child support collection and processing procedure boasted not up to do it however i do find it interesting that every county adopted their own system for the court to process those payments anyway outside of supreme court rule to ninety six so i don't think that as far as supreme court ruled as far as subsection ten and the fact that it says you have to adopt it i don't think that the clerks i'm sorry the committee would have wanted to require a circuit court to adopt i just question ari i don't for a judge this is something they were giving some direction to judges on how to use their discretion to abate child support it doesn't make sense to me and i don't think that it was the intent of the committee to provide the discretion to a beach report to a judge in a circuit that adopted the rest of the who receives the court to collect child support well into the future there is just too many missing yet it's entitled to this support there's a statute of limitations on the collection of it of twenty years so i think that there certainly is the step of the legislative pronouncement that twenty years is the appropriate time frame by which you have to try to collect that support to answer the second part of your question yes to answer the second part of your question relating to we don't know whether or not he david adams petition to extend an additional six months so her argument is that six months from then to tell support would have begun to accrue again pursuant to the rule at fifty one dollars a week now the fact that she didn't receive any increases assuming she would be entitled to that is a burden on her she would have had to file a motion come back into court and ask for that increase but i think there's some there are some very good case law on this specifically states that where a parent is not reinflate it is not the parent's job to keep coming back into court to see if if the parent is employed that would be a waste of money and judicial resources that the obligation as a public policy in the state of illinois is on the paving parents to report employment and that would be people  between just apply strictly to the clerk or strictly to the court and i think you need to take the entire terms of the rule as a whole and as a result if one portion of the rules are complied with which mainly so paragraph and which is effectively to the and no other order was entered subsequent to that date either party could have filed a motion modified over numbers filed in this case and additionally i would note that the record silent on whether or not my client didn't factor ten employment whether that was reported to  until further order of the court and i think that if there's any inference to be drawn from that order it's not necessarily that cindy adams had the ability to support the child on her own it's that there was going to be a further order of discord relating to  that court relating to child support for this child and that there was some obligation on that someone to do something and i think justice jorgensen pointed out section five hundred five provides an obligation for the pay  a case that had some fairly similar facts it wasn't fairly similar timeframe so i think that even if i'm not sure what the effective date of any minister five o five i have not done that research but i think the nonsupport of children act which was in place the time required that very same requirement that the that the pay your spouse provide information relating to employment suited to the way that the policies are drafted the obligation regarding employment the obligation  community support and less is an increase always falls on the course the to the extent that he wanted this abatement to continue under two ninety six asked for more than six months david adams would have the obligation to come back and ask the court to continue and that's why we have argued that it should begin to occur again six months after that order was entered at the fifty one dollars per week if you're saying nothing was needed to start to accrue no petition by the outlook or needed to be fi it i don't believe i sided five o five head to be honest with you i'm not sure why i it may have been that i wasn't sure about the timing of the enactment of that language in the legislative history i and the reason why is first of all my client deny this existence mr adams said it existed i don't believe there was actually ever any testimony in the record if my recollection serves me as to whether or not he exercised visitation i think it clearly says i think it simply says specifically other than i'm not sure what the allegations that have to go back and review her petition to see if it indicates whether or not the child lived with her during that time i don't think there's a specific allegation in the record but i don't think there was a defense raised on that basis either temporarily abated and it makes it very clear in the order that it was based on the fact that mr adams had temporarily been laid off from mark and i think at that point the correct difference to be made is that she must have been entitled to that fifty one dollars a week in support back in  ninety and that absent any court orders it was supposed to be temporary the intent was for it to be temporary and i think that if you're going to make an equitable argument if the balance of the equities here lies anywhere it is not because mr adams argument that because he didn't know supreme court two to ninety six f was in place that he should have to pay child support for thirteen years but that isn't the equities should lie with the custody of a parent who presumably supported the child by herself for thirteen years without a contribution from my biological father who was temporarily now from our of children act was on the husband to go ahead and provide information relating to his employment right and i have one brief question if you devote part of your brief to arguing that this water was void issues the perhaps the orders are considered void if they're entered without jurisdiction and void of all if they're against public policy however i know that there i don't have the case law cites and frankly but there are cases out there that have indicated that workers are void as being against public policy so i would argue that to the extent that there is a dress is it public policy  felt they needed to follow supreme court rule to ninety six and it said that the rule didn't apply i disagree and i disagree because i think that the committee got to make it clear that it was intended to apply and that by specifically and i don't know but i think the use of the words if spirit mental procedures in subsection and make it clear that it's intended to apply to the rest of the rule not necessarily to s