Cited by

The court abuses its discretion only when the record, viewed most favorably to affirming, is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 5 (1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶20 This Court reviews child support orders for an abuse of discretion, viewing the record “in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision.” ¶ 5 (1999).

the Child for the purpose of limiting Father’s parenting time to someone who is safe to be with the Child unsupervised.” Given its view of the totality of the case’s record, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding the therapist’s opinions “[did] not give the Court any comfort Mother is not a danger to the Child or that Mother is likely to honor the Court’s orders.” ¶ 14 (1999) (holding that the “primary task” for a trial court is to weigh the evidence and consider all the circumstances

The court abuses its discretion only when the record, viewed most favorably to affirming, is “‘devoid of competent evidence to support’ the decision.” ¶ 5 (1999) (citation omitted).

n exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion[,]” Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2006), or “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[,]’” ¶ 7 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).

¶ 5 (App. 2019) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).

¶ 5 (1999) (citation omitted).

An abuse of discretion exists when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling, “is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 5 (1999) (quotation omitted).

We accept the superior court’s factual findings absent clear error, id., and will affirm unless the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,” ¶ 5 (1999).

§ 25-327(A); Guidelines § XIV(A); –21 ¶ 6 (1999).

-90, ¶ 20-21 (App. 2011) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in treating payments by employer into deferred compensation plan as employee’s income for spousal maintenance purposes); ¶ 6 (1999) (noting that, when determining child support, court may impute income to parent “if the parent’s earnings are reduced voluntarily and not for reasonable cause”).

“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” Id.; ¶ 5 (1999).

An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court makes an error of law, ¶ 9 (2015), or 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," ¶ 5 (1999) (citation omitted).

In exercising discretion, the superior court must “consider the nature of the changes and the reason for the changes.” ¶ 14 (1999) ( (Mont.

“An abuse of discretion exists when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion,” Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., or “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,’” Milinovich, ().

An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court makes an error of law, ¶ 9 (2015), or 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,” ¶ 5 (1999) (citation omitted).

¶ 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.”).

An abuse of discretion occurs when there is no competent evidence to 2 MURRAY v. MURRAY Decision of the Court support the court’s decision, ¶ 5 (1999), or when the court makes an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

¶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)).

–23 ¶ 13 (1999) (juvenile court must consider a range of factors in determining whether a decision to leave employment is reasonable, and therefore, constitutes underemployment).