first relocated here is owner she has difficulties with that particular issue but if the course were going to be grounds for recall there's no treatment here there is no testimony concerning any ongoing treatment there is no diagnosis other than herself diagnosis there is nothing in the or so you understand that the specifically stating that she is sufficiently dysfunctional that she is further manes am i don't recall your expert testified about the players or the court it's only what you think that under the circumstances she wasn't dysfunctional there was no proof that she was dysfunctional other than her own statements to that effect this lady over the course of four here a few years was employed for eight months she indicated  part time not opportunity so he sighs who she was a substitute nurse user for two weeks there after she moved to desert the high school where she was a small nurse for two and a half years to a more seasoning real real high school for forty half months in feel she thinks she would like to work in i think the most telling cabinet that she made a or b or b answer to a question i submitted which was with regard to businesses doctors offices in the tucson area where you we are of how many there were and she looked at me and she said i have no interest in that right to work and the doctors nurses only make fifteen dollars an hour and i'm here living there that's a conscious decision by individual incentive for the requirements and we're asking this court is given this is the standard by which we're going to determine a good faith effort the bar here is very very low this court needs to be in a position to set a standard by its ruling in this case as to what is a good faith effort and with all due respect universe there is nothing in the record other than this lady's testimony will this she had post traumatic stress syndrome again get back to the gold and it could still be modified up or down in and there are still terminating events even if it's permanent directs the court to the coal decision where the court stated in that decision that the difference looking at all the factors not just focusing on this one clause it's a gatekeeper clause but once the trial makes the finding that she made a good faith effort it's a review under five four and five ten the end there should be an obligation on the part of the recipient of the maintenance to make efforts to become more self sufficient to get employment to earn income not necessarily that it's ever expected or realistic a lot of the cases refer to the  realistic it is to expect her to ever insufficient income to support herself in the lifestyle she enjoyed her marriage so in other words the maintenance allegation may be ongoing and permanent but there an obligation on the part under subpoena to become more self sufficient with the expectation that the maintenance would be lowered butt course it would be in the context of other circumstances like for example mr robert or mr holes or i'm sorry mr roberts income was the judge's decision so forth somewhere in the record that would give us the ability to review would determine whether or not he made a determination that this was in fact based feel for where she has been educated or trained particularly in the nurse and that was immediately after he made a finding that her efforts had it had been a good faith effort on her for considering what he perceived to be to be don't know that this mill southern freeman particularly a capitalist the directives from golden because all these people apparently walked out of the courtroom after the vote with a different understanding as to what was supposed to happen prior basically discourage and maybe even prohibit the actual establishment of the terminations date to the fact in effect taking away the regular symbiont to petition to modify three four years down the road because nobody has a crystal ball knows what's going to happen argument to the it's logical conclusion then she would have been happy with three dozen dollars a month for the rest of her life or until one of the factors kicked in well i i would just go back to the cold case the status of the  is the distinction between permanent rehabilitative is really more a matter of who carries the burden so what i would say at this point is the distinction between the next review if there is one versus what happened in the trial court on this occasion is the next time it would have to be mr roberts that would file a petition of modifying he'd have the burden of proof to show me why me should be decreased or terminated based on the circumstances at that time so there's nothing prohibiting mr roberts from going back into court to see to decrease or terminate maintenance depending on the circumstances also be done is between the the judgment in the first review versus any subsequent petition modifies we just switched the burden back over to mr roberts which i think by the terms  as i would agree in the sense that it's trying to follow the instruction from gold that there was a little bit of a failure here because obviously both parties had a different understanding as to what would happen in the at the four year  point and mr roberts obviously felt that he would be entitled to have it terminated unless she was gainfully employed because how could she come up with an excuse for not being gainfully employed and gail felt that if she was making a best effort to gain employment even if she was unsuccessful she would then be entitled to have the mean that's extended in again based on the length of this marriage the fact that gail abandoned what was a successful business to move with with mr roberts to st louis for his career and then was out of the workforce for twenty four years the then saying ok realistically a fifty five year old woman was not work for twenty four years hoofs head has gone through circumstances however i think the post judging curiously split up in the time i think for the first two years she had a good plan she made a good effort she went back to what she'd done successfully for she went away on a she did she went to many hospitals she well she did it generally she was she was trying to get into positions that would within the hospital setting be more geared towards what she had been successful at which was the cycle  modification of germination maintenance to arenas only when the parties do not provide specific terms for modification or germination is the trial court then free to consider all factors and sections five to four and five te rehabilitated despite making a good faith effort to become rehabilitated the petition has made its need to be increased decreased or continue the same amount depending upon the neck and out of circumstances of the partners now at the time of the