support obligation with the salary twenty dollars per week and he was obligated to get a job search and he also agreed to pay twenty dollars per week for an between competing alternatives as opposed to whether or not any daycare provider would have been feasible in other words both parties work with both made the determination that daycare was necessary so it's not that i mean even if it was ten dollars a month since both were operating in the red neither could afford that either but since they care was that she from the timeline that i glean from the records she inquired on the day that she submitted the application to the press jury here and found out that that particular provider was not available but it also mean mr marshall indicated in his testimony that erica did not reveal to him that she had inquired into any in the whole providers other than the one that he suggested and on that day would have had the opportunity to select what did john say this was what offering up what were the parameters of that option the or was that  that he felt that he was without any recourse that he didn't have the ability to provide that kind of been put because of decision had already been made that his ex wife was telling him that she had final say on the issue so he felt that any effort on his part i think this way indicates that he felt any effort on his part would have been futile at that point well there's already that they only have a week correct i think the sat wasn't her jeremy got a pressure and i think think the testimony revealed that he graduated on friday or something other salary and that he found out on sunday and then it was the following friday that the children were  looking at john marshall's financial situation he testified that he had transportation expenses of roughly seven hundred fifty dollars per month which included a three hundred ninety seven dollars per month car payment testif so after suppressing the transportation student loan payments all that leaves some of her eighty nine dollars per month per mr marshall will after suppressing the five hundred eighty four dollars per month in child support those orders at least two hundred five dollars per month for him to live on coincidently he testified that he thought that somewhere between two hundred to two hundred seventy five dollars per month in contributing towards a fair expenses would be reasonable and that would cause him to continue to operate in rec but he never denied his obligation to contribute towards the financial support of his children he never challenge that he should be obligated to pay twenty percent of his net income and he never does deny that he should be required contribute some amount to his children's childcare expenses but the result of a court order is that he has no prospect of moving out of his parents home and based on the sayings we believe that uses discretion in finding that john marshall being required t fair expenses was reasonable under the circumstances or second argument concerns the retroactivity of the child support and we have to arias on that first one is that the and secondly even if the court were within its discretion of order the award be retroactive if there's a matter of law in making the award grow to active to may twenty second when the dish was filed the undisputed facts before the court so your position is if we find that retroactive  case authority that suggests that the the trial court is to take into account the individual's ability to pay in making of determination as to whether or not retroactive child support is proper i do not hear half of that and also increase johnson child support obligation to five eighty four per month retroactive to may twenty second two thousand and fifteen which was the date that erica marshall filed for her petition to modify what do you have any case law supporting the notion that the court can order support retroactive to the david the filing when the person is even employed in that point on that day well in the  motion to modify erica marshall allege that he was in fact currently employed with the record doesn't support that would you agree i would disagree now granted while in hindsight in reviewing the records additional questions perhaps could have been i mean let's assume he wasn't let's say he was at the time that the tissues filed would it be appropriate to order it that date if the person is not even employed no it would not be appropriate and and i think that i would have been i assisted her in filing that motion to modify or i would have an ethical obligation to make sure that i had a reasonable belief that she was in fact employed to improve the allegation in the petition to modify support and indeed petition to modify  support america allege that john marshall was currently employed and so that there has been a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a modification of support and there was no evidence that i'm john marshall ever denied or refuted erika's allegation in the petition to modify that he currently have full time employment when the petition was file indian said that the job he was working now while it was obviously more than when he was unemployed it wasn't as much as the job he had i guess before he became unemployed he wanted me to testify to do more than that i think i think that the judge could easily have said that it was definitely better active to do twenty seconds but my arguments to the trial court was that it should have been retroactive to the day to fil petition because mr marshall was put on notice at the time that the judgment of dissolution of marriage was and third that child support would be modified upon and became full time employment or otherwise receiving unemployment sue mr marshall was well aware that and increase in child support would be forthcoming this soon is his income increase or he started receiving unemployment benefits but i do think that should be included in the and the equities particularly because children should maintain the same standard of living and in fact that was the home in which the children have lived in and was able presumably and could potentially be and better in a better financial position that his expenses are significantly less than his mar choice to pay down student loan debt and of course the record it's not clear exactly how much he was painting over and beyond the amounts that  the payment plan required the record does indicate per mr marshall's testimony that he was trying to get that pay down so that he would be able to go out and buy a home so it seems as though his priority was to to try to reduce the debts to get him into a superior financial position but when you look at the activities of the parties the parties were earning about the same amount of in erica was earning approximately five thousand dollars more a year than mr marshall but her expenses far exceeded those expenses i'm mr marshall because he had the benefits of being able to live with his parents and his parents pay those expenses which i gave him more money available where he would be able to what was required the record and the case that he was trying to pay down his student loan debt so he was paying more than the minimum amount that was required but the but again as i believe that i have stated that john did remain silent on the issue of press retroactivity of support and so he raises this issue for the first time on appeal and  authority to do that and because it is well established that the court has the authority to order retroactive child and mr marshall knew that he was going to be pain increased support once he attained full time employment or otherwise receive social security or unemployment benefits  he could have easily i'm started saving time so that the arrears wouldn't seem so excessive and he could have set that money aside particularly since he didn't have documentary evidence there was testimony that john had provided that what was that testimony other than him saying about it was less than the job he had before he could correlate that with the test because the the judge has the court had no other evidence to the contrary to consider and could only consider the evidence for it testimony is definitely subject to alternative inter whether the court you have used its discretion in knowing what is accurate is it at that hearing to demonstrate the change in circumstances which would logically include the amount owed the income so that the court can set t fifteen correct ok but will the law it is the law subject to change here in the near future in order that such that it would allow a deduction for student loan  from the third district in that case there was an issue regarding payment of extracurricular expenses and in that case the trial court on reconsideration chose to reduce the father's obligation to pay forty percent of the children's extracurricular expenses to twenty percent of the mother feel that case and the  decision found that it was entirely proper for the court the trial were to have reduced the actual proof works best from forty percent to twenty percent because with the imposition of forty percent of extracurricular expenses the father was paying approximately fifty percent of his net income in child support and children's expenses and after reducing it he was only a approximate forty percent were actually said we commend the work for reconsidering and then correcting its own air so clearly that indicated that they believed it to be air for the father in that case to be paying more than fifty percent of his net income in total children's expenses and in this case mr marshall is paying fifty eight percent of his that is when you consider child support half of the care expenses in the original album of the basis counsel in the case that you're referring to what was the financial dollars for above tours the daycare expenses that would result in forty percent forty seven percent of his net income being paid out representing five hundred eighty four dollars per month child support to seventy five towards the  extracurricular and one hundred sixteen dollars per month towards your rich if you take that a rich amount out that would have been forty one percent of his net income being a place for his child support and daycare if there are no furthe