With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his monthly child support obligation. We note, however, that Mother cross-petitioned and received a judgment against Father for child support arrearages. The family court did not make a specific finding of which party prevailed and such a determination is not necessary to resolve the issue here. Even assuming Father was the “prevailing party” on his petition to reduce child support, we nonetheless reject his position that AR.S. § 25-503(E) prevents the family court from awarding fees to the non-prevailing party. ¶ 8 The use of the word “may” in A.R.S. § 25-503(E) provides the family court broad discretion to decide whether to award attorney fees to the prevailing party on a request to modify child support. See Alejandro v. Harrison, 223 Ariz. 21, 24, ¶ 10, 219 P.3d 231, 234 (App.2009) (<HOLDING>). And, contrary to Father’s argument, the

A: recognizing only state courts may authoritatively construe state statutes
B: recognizing the medicare statutes broad delegation of authority
C: recognizing that a statutes use of may when describing the courts authority generally connotes discre tion
D: holding use of word may generally indicates permissive rather than mandatory intent
C.