shots or was against the manifest with a view that we believe that it was we believe the facts in the testimony in this case are very straightforward just a quick recitation on may twenty eighth two thousand and nine visits each week she was also awarded what could be characterized as typical holiday or summer vacation also as part of that judgment visitation with the parties minor sign in that instead of exercising to overnights during the week she had reduced that to one over night during the week i believe it was  entered she was having overnight visits with her side she further testified for approximately the year prior to our hearing she had exercised no overnight visits with her saw she testified that she still had contact with him and spent time with him but she acknowledged that there had been zero overnight is not not her income is decreased right but yes yes sir she had it decrease approximately i believe three thousand dollars between my clients well between your view of the judgment in two thousand and nine and between our hearing i think back in november that was i believe would be characterized as a reduction she had actually obtained she had an associate's degree in nursing i guess at the time of the divorce at the time of our last hearing she had obtained her bachelor's degree in nursing but she had taken a mrs clark exercised visitation with the sign once a week for approximately an hour an hour and a half sometimes less and that would be for supper time under the original decree one ride with the daughter she would have a full and i believe meals in time with the saw and all she had for the year prior to our hearing was one dinner a week for decision is the work stated that this is always been for whatever reason the framework of a very very limited amounts of time to the model with the trade off that there be no child you know it's terms of half the time i guess there really wasn't a lot of time to begin with and then they had agreed that these kids would be you know residential or they'd be living with their dad in shoes you know for breakfast says stuff i don't know five dollars meal but anyway i thought the testimony was that they were eating together at night it was just current he didn't feel comfortable with this the boyfriend that was the testimony on time for the fast money given by impulse and this is what these parties agreed to for me we have to look at these two conditions to see whether or not there's been a change that's why he only changes a taishan is with one  have one change one and that's the song not spending one night overnight with my own for a week that's an income stone that passed the test as well as going down it is to say trial judge for whatever reason she loves being in the divorce court has been there majority of her career and i think she called it absolutely correct very much and i think mr evans before you know one of the big differences that two of us have he sees it as a one night reduction i'm still going to reiterate it's a someone petitions the court seeking recent child support to get or to find out that the op of wars had an eight percent increase in child support judge makes up finally that that's not a substantial change in circumstances there's no way  but in fact the third time on the op of war has at what twenty four percent increase in his child support that would be a substantial change same thing here look at it the other way what's next if now she reduces it want to over night with the daughter well you know are they going to be here saying hey that's just that's just one overnight that's not substantial you know six months after that she goes she reduces one moreover not the dog she has no ties with any of the children but because of the way it came before the court it's not a substantial change in circumstances we view that we believe it is we're asking the court to simply to reverse the trial court relative