months after this miracles mother remembers that he did receive a very nice settlement package but it was certainly not and he immediately went to work trying to find another position as general  this was negotiated by counsel at the time of the marital settlement agreement statutory guidelines appear to be completely ignore the reason i ask is because i wo another line of cases involving the high end in re marriage of bush which i don't even think i have it in my brain but it involves the proposition that child support should never be a when all the child nine percent precision and crazy head figures which were higher but even using her figures it was fifty nine percent carol was investing i believe two thousand dollars a month at the time of trial tracy's testimony was that he was essential a taking money out of his retirement for purposes of keeping all the balls here at the completion of the trial the trial or essentially rendered from the bench a nine age world decision and what the trial court did was it said since there is a marital settlement agreement he believed that a different standard that's perhaps a bit of an overstatement but the distinct distinguishing factor is that neither of these cases dealt with the issue of child support one dealt with the model of modification of spousal ma and the other involved a relatively strange set of facts where there was a modified judgment protests of marriage neither of the cases involved child support in the plates now the  statutes say that and they remain and not preclude or limit the amount of asian of child support now everything in the judge's nine age decision course of the trial in the middle of the proceedings he did make a statement that a fact we shouldn't believe well if we look at his actual decision that's not what he was looking at the decision is sta well that's one of the reasons there is also the second reason which is the standard or modification of child support and that's a two part task the first part of that is to determine whether there has with people that even with the reduction in income is still in the top one or two or three percent nation in terms of regular income from a job that there's no reason to change what amounts to a five thousand dollars child he just i mean why should i do that your income is sufficient for you to do that and if you're being pinched then spend a little less than a computer spend a little less on a car expenses that you can control but the required amount of child work which you're into not me and he's telling people i would never get into this you could never  get but if you're into it and you want to provide the children in this way that's how we're going to do it and given that you still have sufficient funds i mean it if you have to defend your money to take care of the college fun has to be proved it is rather ok and some change in circumstances but those changes really make any difference in a case like this given the assets of the park court wants him to eliminate those extras perps why isn't that a reasonable thing for the trial court to do i think the trial court can look at those things and i think the trial certainly yeah but i think we believe that the trial challenge did not acknowledge the substantial change of circumstance with a fifty nine percent in crete's i believe that g  us past the first prong of the analysis if i am reading the trial court's decision wrecked by the trial court is ruling that a trace he didn't get past the person wrong so the second prong the trial court can certainly consider many things some of which the or to just mention but we haven't gotten to that point because we believe that the trial court abused discretion by not finding that there was  regardless of the price of ours those particular aspects of the child's board are subject to a different standard than child support itself that it would require essentially an exhaustion of assets does it say an eight cylinder twenty eight thousand dollar coupe no it was whatever it was but that's the image i mean it or that it had to be new the price is it suggests that they may have been new cars or for a very upscale used car the testimony that was there at the trial or is tracy would have a car when a child turned sixteen would care and that are over his son he would replace it with a asked if mr hagler it was seeking a deviation from the statutory guidelines because he quickly pointed out that if you look at the statutory guidelines using tracey's figures and his guidelines of twenty percent obviously you are or are exhibits in our calculations would have traces two thousand and eleven at income six hundred seventy nine thousand dollars so based upon our calculations his his the overall financial picture of the parties look at the overall financial click share of the monies that mr blair had your earth over the years one one year being over two million dollars so he was looking at that overall picture yes she was she was invested money is obviously for the or her future and his future in this case because she was a stay at home mother and that's what she had so that's our position of course considered all that considered child i don't think he would have enjoyed but the divorce i don't recall the judge just pacifically stating that if i find that her budget is correct or excessive i don't recall a judge looking at the overall picture again that goes to the standard of living that this child of a spackle era would have enjoyed so i think through that nine pages worth of of explanation i think the judge in his  investing and so forth so she was spending and certainly spending in the monies that she had in her budget work were accurate going back to the issue again if you look at statutory guidelines part of the evidence and of the contention if you will during the testimony and arriving at the different that income figures the traces account because they deducted that the restricted st deduct moving expenses and so forth that tracy was compensated for to arrive at their three hundred one thousand dollars net in some figure obviously our position in the statute says income from all sources and again it's our fired again in certain levels of stock ownership in order to remain in good standing with his company and the board of directors and what the company had done was to essentially  best's but if he wants to hold onto his job he can't do anything with that stop so i only bring resources of the child resources of the custodial parent factors of that you don't believe that the trout really look at any of those factors to the contrary what you have again showed is that bush five forty six a second five nine and that kind of cases says that child support should not be a when paul when we have parents who are making a substantial amount of believe five or six thousand a year she was maintaining this child's life style the child clearly was approximately seven years old at the time but he was still living in the same house he had always gone