argument illinois law generally requires for a substantial change in circumstance to take place there must be a change affecting either the payers ability to pay the heirs income the financial circumstances of the person receiving support or the financial circumstances of the child or children in question in this particular case your honour's it is undisputed that the income of wife the party seeking support did not change she made fifty eight thousand dollars in two thousand and nine and she made fifty eight thousand dollars in change in two thousand and eleven he last texture prior to the child support modification hearing it's further undisputed that there was no increase in mr weber's income mr weber the self employed farmer so there would be some thousand and ten that farm profit had decreased to ten thousand dollars the gross income from his farming operation had also decreased during that time span finally honest there was no testimony whatsoever of any change  circumstances relating to the needs of the minor children the minor children in this case are five and four years old respectively of time hearing on the spend an equal time in the care of each of their parents they live approximately seventeen miles apart and the minor children continue to reside half the month in the former marital residence with their mother and half of them on in that their father's residence purchased after the marriage council then he asked  weber has farming operation in conjunction with a trucking operation this was also in place at the time of the judgement a dissolution of the testimony was that in two thousand april two thousand and twelve the month of the hearing  that he was going to draw a one thousand dollar a month dividend from that that portion of his operation however it's our position that that would have to be looked at in conjunction with two thousand and twelve income not two thousand  on because of the nature of the farming in trucking business we have to use the tax return from the prior year at it as a determiner of mr weber's income it was really the only way we would know what post harvest and expenses address that by saying that i don't think you can look at it as a pure thousand dollars a month that the income information that we submitted to the court was based on two thousand and eleven taxes  on the prior year and can't consider it i mean what if it's making ten thousand additional a month judged if it was true additional i'm not saying that assuming that we're talking about through additional income i don't think we can say with certainty just was true additional income  he never received the thousand dollar a month dividend in prior years from the trucking company headed he had not received in the form of a dividend however he did receive income from the trucking from the trucking business which was reflected in his farming gross and what had happened in two thousand and twelve because there wouldn't be paid was that they incorporated the trucking business as a separate entity from the farming operation that hadn't been done that way in prior years but there was theoretically again without having access to the figures because of the meat you're hearing that theoretically would have replaced him on that was already part of the schedule including a schedule of well put aside theoretical of assumptions here here judge my recollection of the hearing in the bystanders court was that mr weber testified that he was a ford a twenty five percent owner with his parents of the trucking business at the time of the two thousand nine taxes and of the time of the judgment and that he was still a twenty five percent owner that that's my recollection of the evidence that was offered a hearing whether we got into specific details about whether that place that income that was already reflected in the schedule effort or not i can't say we did he did testify that and it's reflected in the bystanders report that there was an ownership interest in both two thousand and nine two thousand and eleven of twenty five percent of the trucking industry trucking business and th didn't know what was federal tax bracket would be bearing in mind of the majority of his income was from the farming operation i did not ask the panel for a look if you between the two thousand and nine gross income in the two thousand eleven gross income mr weber's income decreased by fifty thousand dollars a year or fifty fifty thousand dollars in those two in the periods even even with the twelve twelve thousand yes your honor i'm saying even if you surely added in the twelve thousand if you look at the tax forms that were submitted from two thousand and nine if you're in the record and you look at the tax forms of mid in two thousand and eleven with room the record the twelve would not bridge the gap the income information that we submitted to judge pace you did reflect and add back end of the depreciation amount in two thousand and twelve there was a net income of ten thousand three hundred seventy two dollars of gross profit from the farming operation and one hundred twenty nine thousand dollars seven and change was added back again into appreciation because we knew that was not an allowable discount guidelines and those debt repayments were not disputed as to either necessity the fact of the repayment or the amount of the repayment at trial they appear to have been accepted by on the opposing party and also accepted by i'm going to refer you to paragraph twelve thirteen is it is i read this order it's from those two paragraphs to the truck or determine that there should be an award until the motion to reconsider when at some point in the motion to reconsider the trial court indicated that he was making an upward deviation from the statutory guidelines and that drew my attention because in the case law dealing because of an equal parenting time circumstance what if the they might have equal parenting time but what if there's a disparity in the income of the perkins i have a large disparity let's say things making five hundred thousand and she's making twenty thousand and they split  children equally are you telling me you don't think it would be right to give her child support no your honor i said that i had not seen a case where the where statutory net incomes were determined and an upward deviation from the statutory guidelines was awarded but in those two cases there was a while discrepancy and i think in one case it was sixty six thousand to eight thousand in another case it was approximately forty thousand with a spouse that was unemployed and somehow disabled in those two cases you had a spouse that was the support that was destitute you don't have that in this case in this case you have a spouse that makes this receiving support now even though she has t children only half the money no daycare expense all of all mine every day expenses such as school registration extracurricular activities split she pays all the insurance and she does pay the she does pay all  insurance but that amount comes to one hundred forty three dollars a month and that was agreed to at the only show and it was agreed to at the time of the work if nothing changed in that regard but if judge pay four hundred dollars a month which is pretty minimal well i guess it's possible your honor that you could feel that way but i i don't see how that would compass number one the first element of the substantial change of circumstance  if a substantial change in her financial circumstances or his financial circumstances for the needs of the child of one of those three things would have to be in play through what i think the court saying your honor though i just don't think that that change was found if you look at the motion to modify child support it's basically a collateral attack on the prior ruling it contains basically a statement that upon information and belief father's income has increased but it's conceded all throughout briefs all throughout this the state stipulated by standers before that the net income of the mother has remained the same in this case it hasn't changed the basis in the motion was that she was working a few less hours a week and having to use one time off to separate out at a certain time on time o supplement income with deferred compensation or some other form of income and say you're not making the same amount of money in in the ration king case only two thousand and eleven case out of the fifth district and is involved in a catastrophic automobile accident for the work anymore but it's social security disability payment amassed or exceeded his employment income the courts as well your circumstances have changed because you can't work but you're not making any less money that's the same size and denied a modification support it's the same scenario we've got here on the mom in this case is not making any less money and that's just not a basis for a substantial change  again mr weber's income does not substantially change his employment hasn't substantially changed when you look at the taxes his gross was higher in gross income from formulas higher in two thousand and nine and was in two thousand and eleven his net income from farming was higher in two thousand and nine one thousand thousand and eleven in the needs of the child if you don't come into play here this is a situation where it appears court and at its hearing on i believe it was july second heard the evidence they asked the respondent the father was now earning a thousand dollars per month starting in april two thousand and twelve so starting a month that the parties are not supposed to file a financial affidavit there was one starting at c forty four for mr weber filed october thirteenth two thousand and ten so this was well before the the judgment of dissolution was was entered and the wrists on the bottom on c forty six where there's a request for the party in this case mr weber to state any other income it simply says source trials are weber trucking which i understand to be the trucking company and the amount as needed basis i haven't driven since january two thousand and ten so the suggestion certainly if one were to look back in the record is that there was that he  any of this income if he's any additional income certainly not in the form of an additional thousand dollars now i understand thousand dollars was per month was gross and not net but the way that  weber seems to be arguing this is and the court i think asked this question is just because he didn't earn that extra thousand dollars in two thousand and eleven and so it wasn't counted as the two thousand and eleven income in his income tax returns and you didn't calculate any sort of to doc sions to calculate and that doesn't mean that it isn't current income at a hearing on it on july second for income he began receiving in testified as stated in the bystanders report begin receiving court would have to find a substantial change in circumstances from the record it doesn't appear that it identified any specific change in circumstances what do you see that's sure to have been the substantial change circumstances here justifying the award so i think there are two different changes in circumstances there's one and actually mr weber discloses this in the undisputed facts is that one is that  more than fifteen hundred dollars higher fifty nine thousand nine hundred twelve seventy six i think that's one the other which of course would not be reflected in anyone's either the party or in mr weber's income tax return says this new thousand dollar dividend which she would argue that that was an incorrect finding and that we should make a run for it by that i think that those those two circumstances while while fifteen hundred dollars may not seem like a lot to some people that is i believe one it is a substantial change in circumstances especially when you combine it with an additional foundation dollars an additional twelve thousand dollars that her well per year course it would be one thousand dollars for two if it were averaged ou not just what his additional gross income of a thousand dollars was but the net but the truth is probably the facts are mr weber's personal circumstances may have i believe were changing or had changed in two thousand and twelve such that tax brackets marital status all those sorts of things may have changed whether what sort of deductions and how to calculate any sort of net income and what his actual net income would simply testified that beginning in april he started receiving a thousand dollars a month that she would be required to show changed circumstances for it there needs to be a substantial change in circumstances i believe that that that was demonstrated with mr especially with mr weber's own testimony that he volunteered that he began receiving an additional an additional thousand dollars per month from the family trucking business for which he was one fourth one that he had one fourth interest that you couldn't you didn't even know about that if you prefer that your we did not identify that we believe there was a substantial change in circumstances but no we had not done because you cannot do a discovery request or that sort of thing without any pending pleading you know you can say suggest on information and belief that there's a substantial change in circumstances and then of course if there is not if he had not been receiving that additional thousand dollars if they have some basis for saying that  pleading you do and we believe his income was actually higher and the evidence he bought a house no that wasn't that actually wasn't the reason why we believe he had additional income that house actually i think had been purchased by his family for him and then he took out then we learned later that he actually turned out that he did remodelling and i think took out a loan i don't believe any that's part of the  change it has to be substantial i understand that three hundred to three hundred dollars three hundred dollars a month that she was having to use a certain time off that does run out at the time of the trial court hearings that luckily had not run out yet but her but received not received and been receiving one thousand dollars per month extra in gross from the family trucking business i don't believe the court would have granted the motion to modify  and agree that child support should be found and that sorry that there should be a change and that there should be child support the calculation i think if you did look at stanley tori amounts in the courts in a joint custody the court's not required to do show up there would have been more than four hundred dollars that should have been paid when you look at one half of the insurance costs that the pitch that the mother has paid but she agreed to that the miracle settle in america where i don't think you can not and i'm not sorry i don't longer wants to we're no longer can afford to that she can't that it would be yes that alone would be a substantial change in circumstances but if the court is going to look at and find a substantial change in circumstances which i believe not only to the court fine but that there really is a substantial change in circumstances then in deciding what should be appropriate child support and understanding and acknowledging that the court does not have to use the statutory twenty eight percent of net income or an offset from the difference of those income net incomes that the court can consider what the different costs are including the petitioners additional costs of health insurance dental and vision for the children that is beyond what her own personal health insurance dental and vision are in addition to the differences in income i suppose that the respondent could come back next year or and say that will in fact he only made x amount of dollars from their trucking business we'll see but i don't think it would be appropriate as it seemed to robert was arguing that you have to look at the last year's tax returns because then you don't need to be a year off and if you have if you should look at what is the actual actual income of the parties we didn't have a net income for that found in dollars we had a gross income and so modifying it so it's not exactly zero one hundred twenty one thousand i think it's a calculation i came out if income from the family trucking business and where the mother is paying the children's health insurance costs knowing that child support is always modifiable based on the substantial change in circumstances but his change in circumstances alone don't then dictate ok that's all that the child support that's going to be paid you can consider what those actual costs are including the agreements made by the partners prior to working in the original treasure and for those expenses you don't think just rely on the eighty thousand dollars is based on his two thousand and eleven respondents two thousand and eleven income tax returns which were submitted and petitioners two thousand and eleven income tax returns which were submitted as opposed to the additional income which respondent testified to but and as the bystanders note bystanders report notes there was no financial affidavit filed by respondent to spite the requirement of the eleventh circuit that the financ be prepared for any modification of child support the mr weber did not file one to disclose that additional income or any sort of calculation regarding that net so i believe that that paragraph twelve a standard reference to two thousand and eleven income tax returns as opposed to two thousand women plus his new income is as one fourth interest in a new income doesn't seem to even be contemplated in his  right and i believe just as reflected in the bystanders report which was prepared by both parties and approved i believe signed off on private by judge although she doesn't have a signature it reflects that extra he began receiving an earful two thousand volts of the court was aware of that from the testimony on july second prior to making its ruling in the order that was entered  think that the court that there was a substantial change in circumstances in the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that substantial change in circumstances and determining that child support in this joint custody  child support if you look at robert's income and again you can't get exactly what it was but if his net income was three thousand nine hundred  you would have gotten somewhere around four thousand nine hundred sixty four dollars per month as far as mr weber's net income or proximate net income is weber's income was three thousand six hundred eighty seven if you look at that difference  and look at twenty eight percent you would see a difference of a thousand and thirty to thirty six if you add in reimbursement for one half of the medical care is one vision insurance of seventy one fifty per month the offset or the difference of thousand thirty to thirty six plus one half percent of that plus the seventy one fifty is one half of the insurance you've come to for twenty nine zero six per month i don't think four hundred dollars is that far off and i  think it was appropriate we would ask the court your honour's in response to the twelve thousand dollar issue i would note on a twenty of my brief career graph seven of the course the original order in two thousand and nine the court makes  finding the schedule if the income for mr was eight hundred thousand one hundred forty five dollars with a net profit of sixty two thousand four hundred forty six dollars in two thousand and eleven it was seven twenty one one seventy seven with a net profit of ten thousand three seventy two twelve thousand dollars as much as we want to talk about it doesn't come close to bridging gaps whether it's new with the same in whatever income that differential is too large for twelve thousand dollars  it out in the brief and i apologize i've been remiss in them but but on if you look at the gross figures along support obviously found relevant enough to put it this ruling twelve thousand doesn't that doesn't touch these differential either on the gross worth more than the sun and when you look at the other basis for the one on one more no quite clearly this wasn't part of judge casey rationale in this ruling it's not mentioned in the written order it was not mentioned in the bit in the bench ruling on the motion to reconsider never any point to just basically say you're making this new twelve thousand dollars a year he never categorized as a new on thousand dollars a month  five percent of this right income that's two point five percent that's not a substantial change in circumstances and as the courts know noted already even that reduction was voluntarily take so we have no substantial change in circumstances then and judge your honour's in closing there's not surprisingly a case quite like this in the reported record  a case deals with the situation where there was not equal overnight parenting time and there was a designation in favor of the child support recipient the other split custody cases deal with vast income differential sixty six thousand eight thousand and one and in the fleming case and an unemployed and disabled spouse in the rep and silence in case there isn't a case like this where where there's been a child upward deviation from the guidelines which is what the pace you apparently said he was doing in the transcript on the move to reconsider your honor i think for those reasons this was an abuse of discretion both on the dance of chang circumstances side and on the side of a working child or even after making no finding and on that basis i guess trial court reversed a judge ruling and to reinstate the support provisions as