Cited by

Because mother did not cross-appeal, the court may not expand her rights or diminish father’ ¶ 17 (App. 2009); ARCAP 13(b)(2) (“The appellate court may direct that the judgment be modified to enlarge the rights of the appellee or to lessen the rights of the appellant only if the appellee has cross-appealed seeking such relief.”).

¶ 11 (App. 2009) (holding that a premature notice of appeal need not be dismissed when “only ministerial tasks remained to accomplish the entry of a final judgment”); ARCAP 9(c) (“A notice of appeal .

¶ 17 (App. 2009) (“The issues raised in Mother’s cross-appeal all seek an enlargement of her rights .

¶ 17 (App. 2009) (“The issues raised in Mother’s cross-appeal all seek an enlargement of her rights .

“We review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of the [Child Support] Guidelines.” ¶ 21 (App. 2009).

¶ 15 n. 2 (App. 2009) (recognizing that motions to strike are “not properly used to voice objection to the content of a court order,” and should be restricted to the “narrow purpose articulated in the rules”).

¶¶ 40–41 (App. 2009); ¶ 16 (App. 2001).

§ 25–320; Guidelines § I1; ¶ 8 (App. 2015), and to establish consistent child support standards that adapt to the children’s needs and their parents’ ability to pay, ¶ 38 (App. 2009).

Performance Funding, ¶ 5 (App. 2000) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2009)).

§ 25-320 app. § 5(E) (“If income is attributed to the parent receiving child support, appropriate childcare expenses may also be attributed.”); -11, ¶¶ 22, 24 (App. 2009).