Cited by

¶ 19 (App. 2017) (“If the amount calculated under the Guidelines appears adequate under the circumstances, the superior court does not need to consider a deviation allowed by the Guidelines.”).

¶11 “[O]nce a court finds there has been a significant and continuing change in circumstances from a previous child support order [that deviated from the Guidelines], the court must review the parties’ situation anew; no presumption [of a deviation] from a previous order exists.” ¶ 25 (App. 2017); see also Amadore v. Lifgren, 802 Ariz. Adv.

425, ¶¶ 1, 24 (App. 2017) (rejecting mother’s argument “that there is a presumption for a deviation if it has been previously imposed”).

Nia v. Nia , , 422, ¶ 7, , 1102 (App. 2017).

¶ 26 (App. 2017) (finding claims waived when issues are not pursued before the trial court); ¶ 25 (App. 2012) (same).