Cited by

“An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion[,]” Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2006), or “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision[,]’” ¶ 7 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).

¶ 9 (App. 2023); ¶ 7 (App. 2015).

We review interpretations of statutes and guidelines de novo, ¶ 7 (App. 2015), but it is the superior court’s role to weigh the evidence and determine credibility, ¶ 13 (App. 1998).

We look to “plain language as the most reliable indicator of the supreme court’s intent.” ¶ 10 (App. 2015).

(emphasis added); ¶ 8 (App. 2015) ("When applying the Guidelines, the 'paramount factor' a court must consider is the best interests of the child.").

617, ¶¶ 7, 16 (App. 2015) (the court’s decision to include a particular source of funds as income for child support is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

“An abuse of discretion exists when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.’” ¶ 7 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).

[and] strive to interpret the relevant section in conjunction with other provisions of the Guidelines and consistent with their overall purpose.” ¶ 10 (App. 2015).

§ 25-320(D); ¶ 20 (App. 2015).

§ 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).

617, ¶¶ 7, 16 (App. 2015).

¶ 14 (App. 2020) (legal decision-making and parenting time); ¶ 7 (App. 2015) (child support).

617, ¶¶ 7, 16 (App. 2015) (noting the categorization of funds “requires consideration of the Guidelines on a case-by-case basis”).