expenses related to the children’s needs at the time of the hearing. The trial court made numerous, in-depth findings regarding the children’s accustomed standard of living, the needs of the children, and the variance between the expenses incurred by defendant on behalf of the children and expenses incurred by plaintiff on behalf of the children. These findings are sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that the Pataky presumption was rebutted. Although in most cases, the custodial parent obtains an increase in child support, a court has discretionary authority to enter an order establishing child support in an amount less than the amount established by a separation or child support agreement. See Bottomley v. Bottomley, 82 N.C. App. 231, 234-35, 346 S.E.2d 317, 320 (1986) (<HOLDING>). We hold the trial court did not abuse its
holding provision in contempt order void because it punished relator for violating order that trial court lacked authority to enter holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet holding trial court had discretionary authority to enter order setting child support amount as less than that provided for in the parties separation agreement holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality holding that an order that determines only the right to attorneys fees without setting the amount is a nonappealable nonfinal order