___Illustrative Cases
 The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to terminate maintenance but extended it at a reduced level in light of each party’s change of circumstances.  Hup v. Hupe
 The uncontroverted evidence presented clearly showed that the average month cost of raising the children had risen dramatically where, even after removing the items that husband considered luxuries, i.e., allowing the children to attend summer camp, son’s involvement in band and daughter’s involvement in gymnastics, the increase was shown to be about $450 a month; since this was a substantial change, the trial court erred in determining that no change of circumstances had occurred.  In re Riegel
___Increase in Income
 Husband was not entitled to modification of support award where his nondisclosure of income prior to the circuit court’s adoption of the marital settlement agreement precluded the husband was proving that the there had been a substantial change in income necessitating modification.  In re Sassano
 Where the trial court applied a type of “sliding scale” approach to modification of child support, it erred; every time a paying parent’s income increases it does not mean that child support payments increase in a like percentage, but rather, the petitioning party must show that there has been a material change in circumstances.  In re Plotz
 A modification of judgment respecting child support may be made only upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances.  In re Bean
 Subsection (a) of this section provides that a support judgment can only be modified after showing a substantial change in circumstances, which requires the petitioning party to show that the support spouse has increased ability to pay and the child receiving support has increased needs.  In re Boyden
 When a supporting spouse’s financial condition improves, notably where there is a discussion suggesting that increases should be made, child support payments may be required to be increased, even though there is no showing that the child’s or children’s needs have increased specifically where the original support payments did not adequately meet the children’s needs.  Legan v. Legan

 See Also:  Divorce Lawyers New York