Cited by

¶ 6 (App. 2002); ¶ 9 (App. 2007).

–32, ¶¶ 2, 14–15 (App. 2002).

¶ 6 (App. 2002); (arrearages).

¶ 20 (App. 2002) ("[T]rial courts should generally not attribute additional income to a parent that would require an extraordinary work regimen.").

“We ‘accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous,’ but ‘draw our own legal conclusions from facts found or implied in the judgment.’” ¶ 6 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).

“We ‘accept the [superior] court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous,’ but ‘draw our own legal conclusions from facts found or implied in the judgment.’” ¶ 6 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).

STATE L. 1995) (“Construction of ‘Shall,’ ‘Must,’ and ‘May’”); ¶ 26 (App. 2002) (noting, in a different context, “shall” and “should” generally express an obligation or a duty, not a discretionary act); Ariz. Minority Coal.

Id.; ¶ 17 (App. 2002) (noting this provision gives parents the choice to work more hours "without exposing that parent to the 'treadmill' effect of an ever-increasing child support obligation").

§ 25-320 app. (“Guidelines”), ¶ 10 (App. 2002) (applying “the same rules of construction in interpreting the Guidelines that we use in construing statutes”).

“We accept the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but draw our own legal conclusions from facts found or implied in the judgment.” ¶ 6 (App. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The intent of the Guidelines “was to generally exclude only non-mandatory or voluntary overtime from gross income,” thereby ensuring that a child support award is based upon each parents’ regular income and permitting either parent to work additional hours “without exposing that parent to the treadmill effect of an ever-increasing child support obligation.” ¶ 17 (App. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 9 (App. 2019) (legal decision-making authority and parenting time); ¶ 6 (App. 2002) (child support).

“We will accept the court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but [] draw our own legal conclusions from facts found or implied in the judgment.” ¶ 5 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2002)).

¶ 6 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).

This court reviews the superior court’s orders regarding legal decision-making, parenting time and child support for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013); ¶ 6 (App. 2002), viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the orders, ¶ 2 (2018).

¶22 “Generally, we review child support awards for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 6 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).

In applying the Guidelines § 5(A), then Guidelines § 4(A), McNutt v. McNutt held this section did not “entitle a parent who continues to work the same schedule as he or she consistently worked during the marriage to a decreased support obligation.” –32, ¶ 14 (App. 2002).

¶ 21 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2002)).