"`Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.'" Verhey v. McKenzie, 2009 ND 35, ¶ 5, 763 N.W.2d 113 (quoting Buchholz v. Buchholz, 1999 ND 36, ¶ 11, 590 N.W.2d 215). "A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines." Doepke v. Doepke, 2009 ND 10, ¶ 6, 760 N.W.2d 131.

The burden is on the obligor to establish this exception applies. Verhey v. McKenzie, 2009 ND 35, ¶ 11, 763 N.W.2d 113.

However, the amount can be rebutted "if a preponderance of the evidence establishes that a deviation from the guidelines is in the best interest of the supported [child] and" one criteria provided in N.D. Admin. Code § 7502-04.1-09(2) is met. See Verhey v. McKenzie, 2009 ND 35, ¶ 14, 763 N.W.2d 113 ("The exclusive list of the criteria for rebutting the presumption is listed at N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09(2)."). "The party requesting a deviation from the presumptive amount of support under the guidelines bears the burden of proof."

The obligor has the burden to establish an exception. Verhey v. McKenzie, 2009 ND 35, ¶ 11, 763 N.W.2d 113.

The statewide average earning reports published by Job Service of North Dakota are sufficient. Schrodt, at ¶ 24; see also Verhey v. McKenzie, 2009 ND 35, ¶ 13, 763 N.W.2d 113 (citing Orvedal v. Orvedal, 2003 ND 145, ¶ 12, 669 N.W.2d 89).

" Halberg v. Halberg , 2010 ND 20, ¶ 8, 777 N.W.2d 872 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see alsoVerhey v. McKenzie , 2009 ND 35, ¶ 5, 763 N.W.2d 113 (stating importance of accurately calculating obligor’s net income under the child support guidelines). [¶28] Here, the district court granted Raak’s motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to provide relief from the judgment of his child support obligation, as set forth in the parties’ "Informal Agreement."

Raap , 2016 ND 195, ¶ 5, 885 N.W.2d 777. "A correct finding of an obligor’s net income is essential to determining the proper amount of child support." Id. (quoting Verhey v. McKenzie , 2009 ND 35, ¶ 5, 763 N.W.2d 113 ). "Income must be sufficiently documented through the use of tax returns ... and other information to fully apprise the [district] court" of the obligor’s income. N.D. Admin. Code § 75–02–04.1–02(7). "Each child support order must include a statement of the net income of the obligor used to determine the child support obligation, and how that net income was determined."

" Buchholz v. Buchholz , 1999 ND 36, ¶ 11, 590 N.W.2d 215. "If the district court fails to comply with the child support guidelines in determining an obligor's child support obligation, the court errs as a matter of law." Verhey v. McKenzie , 2009 ND 35, ¶ 5, 763 N.W.2d 113.[¶ 27] On August 30, 2013, after commencement of the divorce action, the parties entered into a "pre-Interim Hearing" agreement giving Jacobs "sole possession of the mar[it]al home commencing ... August 30, 2013," and stating "the children shall be in her sole care" subject to Raak's parenting time schedule.

The amount prescribed by the Guidelines enjoys a rebuttable presumption of correctness.2009 ND 35, ¶ 5, 763 N.W.2d 113 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 6] The child support guidelines are “administrative rules established under N.D.C.C. § 14–09–09.

Buchholz v. Buchholz, 1999 ND 36, ¶ 11, 590 N.W.2d 215. "If the district court fails to comply with the child support guidelines in determining an obligor's child support obligation, the court errs as a matter of law." Verhey v. McKenzie, 2009 ND 35, ¶ 5, 763 N.W.2d 113. Under the guidelines: