in terms of the information before the court and the timeliness of that information will help in this case what is the financial affidavit that was presented to the trial court there is no testimony whatsoever in my finding bed verifies that any of the documentation that was brought forth in the financial everyday with actually accurate at the time this hearing and what this court  specifically this is this comes from all county this court specifically addressed in anderson will county local rule eight point zero five that rule provides that the manner in fact it wasn't even close to being done in this matter to answer your question judge more fully i were worse were her financial circumstances at the time appearing in how not a good practice and i think that you know frankly that some of the reasoning behind the changes that are on the watch that are more reflective of that of the of the discrepancy that can can occur i think this is one of those  the judge was looking at evidence that was stale its it did not comply with the local rule you put in the statue you look a saw and in terms of the deviation down word not showing substantial change in circumstances this was the underlying factual basis for this motion so she found the best factual basis was not met just the record shows testimony that son's special needs because of her son's special needs there was a name to set boundaries and a specific predictable schedule for the children she testified that having plans for the children particularly her special needs son on the weekends was critical and she can't make plans of mr ford changes his parents schedule at the last minute mr torrance communication with his family wife regarding the changes in his schedule as in the years since then not even identify an emergency schwartz believes the court didn't consider this testimony well because jens kennison didn't specifically right result the statutory factors in the ruling she's not a first year law student and there is no cas its motion to reconsider specifically stated it quelled the court incorrectly upright the law in this matter by not finding there was a substantial change in circumstances and might not finding it was in the best interest of the children to change the nose for balances and if there are it or not so this was completely updated by way of testimony and it's all in the record well it's clear that the court did consider the parties financial circumstances at the time of the hearing but hundred eighty seven dollars that's appear to be patient from gross of the projected income of two hundred seven thousand here which is mr towards projected income and i also want to point out what mr tort was trying to do in that hearing he was paying i family marital residence in naperville much more your cost of living in the house like a house in this case and fall into disrepair and there was no deviation from dr line at a gross income of eight hundred twenty six thousand testified about this wasn't the lifestyle and heritage this is the kenzie and he even if it was even if that was the watchtower in the marriage and there were rats or whatever it is under the back up mr one thousand dollars payable for cash accumulating thirty five thousand and savings twenty eight thousand retirement pay fifty three thousand it was attorney and consistently referred to his former wife as a gold digger does outline she does our line in previous hearings you know issues that she had with mr torek right i think that if you if you take a look at the specific person reasoning on these these issues showing that this isn't something that's working you know so yeah well well for him but the reverse is also true it's also not something i was working on the children to be able to have facilitated a very fine with their father it