Cited by

(noting courts may consider recurring cash gifts as income to a parent).

Sherman, 241 Ariz. at 113 ¶ 9–10

her specifically challenges the court’s decision to “round[] up Father’s [child support income] to $10,888.00 without indicating where that figure came from.” Child support income “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.”

(including “recurring gifts”); (“[I]n considering the equities affecting child support, a court may still take into account any regular and substantial benefits a parent receives from remarriage.”).

§ 25-324(A); (citation omitted).

Id.; (interpreting the 1992 Guidelines which also used the Income Shares Model).

The superior court has the “sound discretion” to decide whether changed circumstances warrant a modification, (), and the “Guidelines do not replace the exercise of trial discretion; they focus it.” Id.

See Guidelines §§ IX(B)(1) (court may deviate when applying the Guidelines is unjust or inappropriate); II(A)(1)(b) (defining “[c]hild [s]upport [i]ncome” broadly to include “income from any source” including “recurring gifts”); (affirming attribution of mortgage payments as income for mother living in a house rent-free).

(“The statute does not specify or limit the items that the court may consider in determining a parent’s ‘financial resources.’”).

Milinovich, 236 Ariz. at 616, ¶ 11 ().

(reviewing child support awards for an abuse of discretion).

(holding that mother's receipt of "$2,400 a month from her parents on a regular basis as a gift" supported a change in child support obligation).

¶21 “Arizona has adopted the Arizona Child Support Guidelines for, among other things, the purpose of establishing a standard of support for children consistent with their needs and the ability of parents to pay, and to make child support awards consistent for persons in similar circumstances.” (citing Guidelines § 1).

The family court may treat “the free use of a home” as income from recurring gifts if the benefit is “substantial” as well as “regular and continuous.” –85 (App. 1994) (affirming attribution of homeowners’ mortgage payments as income for mother living in house rent-free).

The superior court is given discretion in its income determinations, and the Guidelines do “not specify or limit the items that the court may consider in determining a parent’s financial resources.” (internal quotation marks omitted).

2 JOHNSON v. JOHNSON Decision of the Court and to make child support awards consistent for persons in similar circumstances.” A.R.S.

The Guidelines’ purpose is to establish “a standard of support for children consistent with their needs and the ability of parents to pay, and to make child support awards consistent for persons in similar circumstances.”

available for expenditures'" ().

(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”).

There is no statutory limitation on items that the “court may consider in determining a parent’s ‘financial resources.’”