Cited by

424, ¶¶ 7, 18- 20 (App. 2017); Support Guidelines § IX; Maintenance Guidelines § V. A. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by attributing $580,000 as Father’s income.

(change of circumstances); ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (best- interests findings); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (credibility assessments and weighing evidence); ¶ 9 (App. 2019) (legal decision-making and parenting time); ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (child support); ¶ 20 (App. 2016) (attorney’s fees).

¶ 7 (App. 2017) (stating that this Court relies on both found and implied facts in the judgment).

¶ 9 (App. 2017) (requiring substantial and continuing changed circumstances).

¶21 “The decision to modify an award of child support rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.” ¶ 7 (App. 2017) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).

3 NICKEL v. POTTER Opinion of the Court DISCUSSION ¶9 We review child support awards for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 8 (App. 2018), and we will affirm the court’s rulings for any reason supported by the record, ¶ 7 (App. 2017).

Because “[w]e defer to the superior court’s ‘determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence,” -24, ¶ 14 (App. 2017), on this record, Wife has not shown that the court abused its discretion.

Mother concedes that her failure to request specific findings of fact pursuant to ARFLP 82 “waived the argument on appeal that the superior court was obligated to explain why a deviation was not warranted.” ¶ 26 (App. 2017).

¶21 We interpret the Guidelines de novo, ¶ 7 (App. 2017), but will affirm the court’s findings regarding Father’s income if they are supported by sufficient evidence and not clearly erroneous

This court accepts the family court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, ¶ 5 (1999) () (affirm unless “devoid of evidentiary support”), but reviews de novo the court’s conclusions of law and interpretation of the Arizona Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”), ¶ 7 (App. 2017).

DISCUSSION I. Child Support ¶6 Father argues the superior court’s upward deviation was not supported by competent evidence, and Mother did not differentiate her needs and expenses from Child’s. ¶7 We affirm an award of child support unless it is “devoid of competent evidence.” ¶ 7 (App. 2017).

The decision to modify child support is within the superior court’s “sound discretion.” ¶ 9 (App. 2017) (citation omitted).

§ 25- 320 app. § 24(A); ¶¶ 9-14 (App. 2017).

“We will uphold the award unless it is devoid of competent evidence and for any reason supported by the record.” ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

“We review child support awards for abuse of discretion,” ¶ 8 (App. 2018), upholding the award for any reason supported by the record, unless it is devoid of competent evidence, ¶ 7 (App. 2017).