With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". indicates the parties’ intention to not give the father a statutory adjustment in his child support based on his substantial time-sharing, the trial court erred in applying the adjustment in section 61.30(ll)(b), absent some substantial change in circumstances that would justify overlooking the father’s earlier waiver of his right to that statutory reduction. See Knight v. Knight, 702 So.2d 242, 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting the “well[-]established rule that when ‘the child support was based on an agreement by the parties that was subsequently incorporated into an order, a heavier burden rests on the party seeking a reduction than would otherwise be required’ ” (quoting Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So.2d 811, 814 (Fla.1997))); cf. Seiberlich v. Wolf, 859 So.2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). The father sought the instant reduction in

A: holding there is an increased burden to modify a child support obligation based on substantial change in circumstances where an agreement is involved
B: holding that the court could award child support without a showing of changed circumstances where the original divorce decree awarded child support to be set after a specified time upon petition to the court
C: holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet
D: holding that in modification proceeding trial court should have adjusted child support based on substantial timesharing even though the father had earlier agreed to pay child support without such an adjustment trial court found that circumstances had changed based on fathers reduction in income
D.