Cited by

¶ 10 (App. 2016) (“The paramount factor a trial court must consider when applying the Guidelines is the best interest of the child.” (citation modified)).

“We accept the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous but review de novo the court’s conclusions of law and interpretation of the Arizona Child Support Guidelines.” ¶ 9 (App. 2016).

¶ 4 (App. 2018) (parenting time); ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (child support); ¶ 9 (App. 2007) (spousal maintenance); ¶ 4 (App. 2007) (division of community property).

(“Guidelines”); ¶ 9 (App. 2016).

¶ 9 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).

But the correct inquiry is not whether the money received is a gift or a loan but rather, whether “the parent acquired a source of funds for living and personal expenses, from which the children would have benefitted had their parents not divorced.” ¶ 15 12 POLICH v. POLICH Decision of the Court (App. 2016).

–14, ¶ 14 (App. 2016); Guidelines § II.A.1.b.

Id.; ¶ 17 (App. 2016); Helland, 236 Ariz. at 203, ¶ 28.

§ 25-320 app. (2022); ¶ 9 (App. 2016).

¶21 This court reviews a child support award for an abuse of discretion and accepts the superior court’s “factual findings unless clearly erroneous.” –113, ¶ 9 (App. 2016).

¶ 9 (App. 2016); –59, ¶¶ 4, 7 (App. 2011).

Similarly, we review child support awards for an abuse of discretion and accept the court’s “factual findings unless clearly erroneous.” –13, ¶ 9 (App. 2016).

“[G]ross income for child support purposes is not determined by the gross income shown on the parties’ income tax returns, but rather on the actual money or cash-like benefits received by the household which is available for expenditures.” ¶ 14 (App. 2016) (quoting Cummings, 182 Ariz. at 385).

¶ 15 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).

¶ 9 (App. 2016); –59, ¶¶ 4, 7 (App. 2011).

¶ 16 (App. 2016) (“We see no reason under the Guidelines that [a parent] should be able to select one level of expenditures for [her]self while supporting [her] children based on a lower hypothetical income level.”).

¶ 2 (App. 2005); ¶ 9 (App. 2016); ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (“The presence of contrary facts does not render a trial court’s factual determinations clearly erroneous.”).

¶ 9 (App. 5 DOLE v. DOLE Decision of the Court 2016) (child support); ¶ 9 (App. 2007) (spousal maintenance).