With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Additionally, Coats explained that Civil Rule 90.3 did not abrogate the prior case law. Id. at 776. Finally, Coats again cited to the Sheffield Commission Report to explain the rationale for requiring a heightened burden to prove the need for a variance from the formula: “The formula approach is intended to provide information to the parties and attorneys so that child support may be predictable, reasonable, simple to calculate, without prejudice, and reflect the duty of both parents to support their children commensurate with their abilities.” Id. at 777 n. 7. The record indicates that Jerald failed to introduce any evidence showing that the there was no relationship between income and consumption. We therefore conclude that Coats is dispositive of Jerald’s claim that Civil Rule 9) (<HOLDING>). Jerald also argues that the vagueness of the

A: recognizing presumption
B: holding that child support formula creates a rebuttable presumption and an inequitable result rebuts the presumption
C: holding that the absence of plausible grounds for relief rebuts the presumption of prejudice
D: holding that a conviction even when later reversed creates a rebuttable presumption of probable cause
B.