issues first is quite simply stated the judge standard here by refusing to follow the judgment of judge stuart which approved a marital settlement agreement in which merced get into the judgment of dissolution that should be almost enough to just kind of sit down but that's not why we all came here today to read aloud or maintenance in the a child  the to begin i think the the factors i'm going to cover your your thoughts here but i think the factor that is lost right now is that standard found that the judgment of judge steward by forgetting about the issue of merger violated public policy a good standard that is correct that is correct but once again the proof visions in that narrow settlement agreement which were merged in the judgment were so substantial and i think i point that out through through my brief in the various charts that the tail end of the first section that jack was more events of course being and had there been a traditional award of maintenance even the can have a late one but it didn't need to have that and that's why i think the judge standard he was an appellate court he just he didn't make what he saw and years three years after the fact  that are in addition to what would normally be considered maintenance pain in the air in the nature of support of the children for tax consequences are going to be treated differently  provision and jack had the children for more preferred bach fifty percent of the time he continued to support them in that way plus all of the other obligations including name some money and student loans and other creditor obligations that she had so i think the the concept that judge standard could go back and say we're going to implement a retroactive application challenged or because this judgment was violated it was only three years it didn't change anything except the maintenance justice right the maintenance was the only thing that was changed step down and then by its own terms which again he can't find is is wait there has to be a substantial change the circumstances and all of that is missing from this case that was not done by the state's wards and this is normal no child or determination in the beginning and i know  postponed it so you can't manage by something that wasn't that it was the very first emanation that what you're saying is that because there was no child support her say that that makes the original and so you're agreeing with judge standard that that violated public policy ok good  i think that the case that i cited roski if i'm saying that right stands for a very simple proposition that once it was settled it was subtle and when or in this case the only person in public income and the requirement because they've agreed to showing any substantial change in circumstances was never met it's not required when you agree otherwise if you have a maintenance provision that just expires on its face but no no you know there is we're never going to revisit of the interest but then that i think you have to e did not allege and the trial cup court did not consider anything other than judge standards finding a violation of upper house thank you and i think that  states rather than the children themselves that by that type of ruling it decreases jack's i'm going ability because the state is still trying to collect the back retroactive child support and i disagree with with your analysis just as right i think that jack's ability is is diminished greatly by the estates grabbing to pay creditors to pay the estate lawyers etc grandmother was  i guess maybe yeah but that's that's something that is great spirit in the year there was a great disparity in income that was all considered in the original deal between these two people  timing of this is while he department filed their petition to modify child support even july of two thousand and twelve when judge standard then that petition he doesn't make it retroactive for that three year period here counsel at the time did not argue that during this was a one year period of time that existed from the retroactive allocation that jack shouldn't have received a credit for as just a suggested for daycare or health insurance or any of those type of provisions but all in september on september tenth of two thousand and thirteen the court enters the unified support order models orders the only department of health care and family services is putting start date and then entering it and it's left up to someone else to calculate it later the order itself the very last box of that them services is going to already consider it delinquent when it makes it retroactive and start to collect that after the arrearages and mr sperry did not attempt to ask for any credits that towards  cumulated would be set forth that and that's what the estate chose to do in may of two thousand and fourteen would also suggest to the court that be courts had to be authority with which to modify the marital settlement agreement had the opportunity to hear the parties had the opportunity to take the evidence into consideration chose not to deviate from the statutory guidelines and chose to also feel that child support wasn't appropriate i didn't have this in front of me before when i was arguing about the i think it's an improper action in my reply brief says it's a rare practice in this one circuit court judge to attempt to exercise a poet review over another and at the time i did my research on this i didn't find any illinois case that had been asked to fill directly that in order by one circuit court judge reporting or rule the final rule which  my reply brief refutes all of what she has said in their oath with the cases that i cited and i don't think that i need to say anything more i think that the it's now in your hands and i think  still justice right in all honesty i don't know if that number is a correct mathematical number or not i think i set forth my reply brief the charts that show the amounts of money that that jack did in fact they even after a few noted before that she went on the public aid and he did not continue one of the other obligations but i don't know if that's a correct number or not mr norton points out th it's so i don't know if that are directly addresses if she was still alive i don't know how to to do that i think if she was still alive then perhaps we wouldn't have all these situations