With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ex-spouse does not automatically terminate' spousal support; it shifts the burden to the support recipient to show extant extraordinary circumstances that justify continuing the support. In re Marriage of Shima, 360 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa 1985). Melissa did not make any showing that would justify continued receipt of alimony. See In re Marriage of Johnson, 781 N.W.2d 553, 558 (Iowa 2010) (explaining the failure to show any extraordinary circumstances warrants termination of spousal support after remarriage). Accordingly, Melissa’s spousal support was appropriately terminated. Melissa’s remarriage and the consequent loss of spousal support alone may not be a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of child support. See Mears v. Mears, 213 N.W.2d 511, 516 (Iowa 1973) (<HOLDING>). But they are clearly factors the court shall

A: holding remarriage of exspouse and loss of income not to be a substantial change in circumstances
B: holding that the statement of current monthly income was the presumptive amount of projected disposable income but presumption could be rebutted by the debt or upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances
C: holding that in determining whether a substantial change of circumstances has occurred trial court must consider income available to parents new marital community
D: holding that final order for alimony may be modified by trial court on showing of substantial change in circumstances of either party
A.