Angel Base reiterates John Stacy's absence from the children's lives and cites Inre Marriage of Selley, 189 Wn.App. 957, 359 P.3d 891 (2015) to support the argument that the father's absence can justify an upward deviation from the forty-five percent threshold. We wrote in that decision:
However, the court concluded that Mr. Selley's failure to exercise any residential time did not authorize it to deviate from the economic table because the parties' combined monthly income was less than $12,000. In re Marriage of Selley, 189 Wn.App. 957, 958-59, 359 P.3d 891 (2015). In the first appeal, we described the issue as "whether the trial court had the authority to deviate from the standard calculation by apportioning a larger amount of the child support obligation to a parent who lessens his or her financial responsibility for the children's basic needs by abdicating visitation."
(quoting In re Marriage of Selley, 189 Wn.App. 957, 959, 359 P.3d 891 (2015)). We will not reweigh the evidence or disturb the trial court's determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses.
" In re Marriage of Selley , 189 Wash. App. 957, 959, 359 P.3d 891 (2015) (quoting In re Parentage of A.L. , 185 Wash. App. 225, 239, 340 P.3d 260 (2014) ). A trial court also abuses its discretion if its decision is "outside the range of acceptable choices, given the facts and the applicable legal standard."
"A deviation from the standard support obligation is appropriate when it would be inequitable not to do so." In re Marriage of Selley, 189 Wn.App. 957, 960, 359 P.3d 891 (2015). When granting or denying a request to deviate from the standard calculation, the trial court "must provide 'specific reasons' for its decision . . . and those findings must be supported by substantial evidence." State ex rel. J.V.G. v. Van Guilder, 137 Wn.App. 417, 424, 154 P.3d 243 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); RCW 26.19.075(3).
Resp't’s Br. at 6. But in accordance with the child support statute, the court first considers the parents’ income and "[t]hen, if requested, a court considers whether a deviation from the standard calculation is appropriate." In re Marriage of Selley, 189 Wash. App. 957, 960, 359 P.3d 891 (2015) (citing RCW 26.19.075(1) ). Because Sotaniemi does not provide any compelling support for her contention that some "income sources" are automatically considered as wealth for purposes of deviation, her argument is not persuasive. II. Attorney fees
" Horner , 151 Wash.2d at 894, 93 P.3d 124 (quoting In re Marriage of Littlefield , 133 Wash.2d 39, 47, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997) ). A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion if its decision is based on " ‘an erroneous view of the law’ " or if its decision " ‘involves incorrect legal analysis.’ " In re Marriage of Selley , 189 Wash. App. 957, 959, 359 P.3d 891 (2015) (quoting In re Parentage of A.L. , 185 Wash. App. 225, 238–39, 340 P.3d 260 (2014) ). ¶ 43 This court reviews a trial court's factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.
"This standard calculation is the presumptive amount of child support owed as determined by the child support schedule before the court considers any deviation." In re Marriage of Selley, 189 Wn.App. 957, 960, 359 P.3d 891 (2015).