Cited by

¶ 21 (App. 2009) (child support); ¶ 14 (App. 1998) (spousal maintenance).

¶ 21 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2002)).

Although the stipulation may be considered as evidence of Father’s income (and although the court might be justified in attributing additional income to Father if appropriate, see Guidelines § 5(E); –11, ¶ 22 (App. 2009)), if Father is able to demonstrate through credible evidence that his income has changed, he may be entitled to a modification.

“Generally, we review child support awards for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 21 (App. 2009).

Sherman v. Sherman , , 112, ¶ 9, , 326-27 (App. 2016) ; Engel v. Landman , , 510, ¶ 21, , 848 (App. 2009).

See ARCAP 13(b)(2); ¶ 17 (App. 2009).

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (finding no jurisdiction over premature notice of appeal when not cured by supplemental notice of appeal).

¶ 21 (App. 2009); see A.R.S.

The Guidelines are intended “to establish a standard of support for children consistent with their needs and the ability of parents to pay, and to make child support awards consistent for persons in similar circumstances.” Milinovich, 343 P.3d at 927

¶¶ 12-13, (quoting Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37, ); ¶ 13, (“[O]utside the slim exception announced in Barassi, premature notices of appeal are ineffective because they disrupt the court process and prevent two courts from assuming jurisdiction and acting at the same time.”).

Engel v. Landman, *113 ¶ 21

Motions to strike are disfavored, ¶ 15 n.2, n.2 (App. 2009), and we deny Husband’s motion because Husband’s distinction between the parties’ arguments 5 SMITH v. SMITH Decision of the Court because Wife filed her motion for a ne

raise different issues than would 4 ADES/BUTKIVICH v. CONTRERAS Jones, J., Dissenting 166, ¶¶ 20-21 (-27 (1995); ¶ 19 (App. 2009); and ¶ 3 (App. 2000)).