Cited by

332, ¶¶ 1, 9 (App. 2001).

¶¶ 40–41 (App. 2009); ¶ 16 (App. 2001).

¶ 4 (App. 2018) (parenting time orders); ¶ 5 (App. 2001) (child support orders).

absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 5 (App. 2001).

(“It is an abuse of discretion to deny attorneys’ fees to the spouse who has substantially fewer resources.” (quotation omitted, emphasis added)).

335, ¶¶ 5, 17 (App. 2001) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).

11 See In re Marriage of Robinson & Thiel, , (attorney fees award reviewed for abuse of discretion).

¶ 14 (App. 2010) (allocation of community assets and liabilities) (citing Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 346, ¶ 5); ¶ 5 (App. 2001) (child support) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).

11 ¶ 6 (App. 2004) ( ¶ 20 (App. 2001)).

335, ¶¶ 5, 20 (App. 2001).

¶ 5 (App. 2001) (quoting Grant v. Ariz. Pub.

See Engel, 221 Ariz. at 514, ¶ 40 , 212 P.3d at 852 (explaining that the amount of child support should not be subject to the “investment decisions or whims” of a parent) ( ¶ 12 , ).

See, -35, ¶ 17, -96 (App. 2001) (acknowledging “broad discretion accorded trial courts in ordering child support”) ( ).

In support of her argument, she relies on this court’s statement that “‘[i]t is an abuse of discretion to deny attorney’s fees to the [party] who has substantially fewer resources, unless those resources are clearly ample to pay the fees.’”