Cited by

¶9 We review a superior court’s order modifying child support for abuse of discretion, ¶ 6 (App. 2010), “accepting the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous but reviewing conclusions of law de novo.” ¶ 7 (App. 2021).

¶ 8 (App. 2010) (“Generally, a court may order reasonable and necessary child support based upon the parents’ financial resources, and may ‘consider all aspects of a parent’s income’ to ensure the award is just and ‘based on the total financial resources of the parents.’”).

¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2015) (involving legal decision-making and parenting time); ¶ 6 (App. 2010) (involving child support).

Consistent with this definition, courts “may consider all aspects of a parent’s income to ensure the award is just and based on the total financial resources of the parents.” ¶ 8 (App. 2010) (internal quotations omitted).

(superior court may count regular gifts as income); ¶ 8 (App. 2010) (gross income for child-support purposes includes not just gross income on tax returns, but also cash-like benefits received which are “available for expenditures”).

To this end, ¶ 11 (App. 2010) -22 (App. 1992).

¶ 7 (App. 2011); ¶ 6 (App. 2010); ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (“The trial court’s apportionment of community property will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse of discretion.”).

Whether the court can attribute a higher income than the party earns is a question of law reviewed de novo, ¶ 9 (App. 2009), but we review factual findings for clear error, ¶ 6 (App. 2010).

¶ 7 (App. 2011) ( (App. 8 RAZDAN v. RAZDAN Decision of the Court 1995)); ¶ 8 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2007)).

Consistent with this definition, courts “may ‘consider all aspects of a parent’s income’ to ensure the award is just and ‘based on the total financial resources of the parents.’” ¶ 8 , (citation omitted).

A decision to modify an existing child support award is within the “sound discretion” of the family court, and, “absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.” ¶ 8 (App. 2007); ¶ 6 (App. 2010).