Cited by

§ 25- 327(A); ¶ 16 (App. 2007).

The court abuses its discretion when the record “is devoid of competent evidence to support [its] decision.” ¶ 8 (App. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

An abuse of discretion exists when the record “is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 8 (App. 2007) (internal quotation omitted).

A court may modify an award of child support based only upon “a showing of changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing.” ¶ 16 (App. 2007) (citing A.R.S.

Yet, on appeal, she asserts that the funds given to her parents were essentially “reinvested” 39, ¶¶ 4, 17 (App. 2007).

We will uphold the award unless it is “devoid of competent evidence.” ¶ 8 (App. 2007) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

at 478, ¶ 16 , ( , 37, ¶ 8, ), and for any reason supported by the record.

¶ 7 (App. 2011) ( (App. 8 RAZDAN v. RAZDAN Decision of the Court 1995)); ¶ 8 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2007)).

¶ 16 (App. 2007) (“The individual seeking modification has the burden of establishing changed circumstances with competent evidence.”).

¶ 7 (App. 2011) (spousal support) (); ¶ 10 (App. 2015) (parenting time) ( ¶ 7 (App. 2003)); ¶ 8 (App. 2007) (child support) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).

“An abuse of discretion exists when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 8, (internal quotes and citations omitted).

A decision to modify an existing child support award is within the “sound discretion” of the family court, and, “absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.” ¶ 8 (App. 2007); ¶ 6 (App. 2010).

§ 25–327(A); ¶ 16, (citations omitted).

“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.” ¶ 8

¶ 15 , *618 (concluding that sale of farmland was not gross income for purposes of calculating child support because land was exchanged for other like-kind property); , (concluding that capital gain from sale of co

¶ 21, (finding no abuse of discretion in family court’s denial of mother’s request for modification of child support because mother failed to establish that father’s employment or earnings had undergone a substantial and continuing change).

Because he is seeking modification, Father has “the burden of establishing changed circumstances with competent evidence,” ¶ 16

-38, ¶ 8, -43 (App. 2007).

-38, ¶ 8, -43 (App. 2007) (citations omitted).

The superior court has broad latitude to fashion an appropriate award of child support, and we will uphold the award unless it is “devoid of competent evidence.” ¶ 8 , (quotation omitted).

37, ¶ 8, , 1142 (App.2007).