350 Md. 502, 520-21, 714 A.2d 163 (1998); Tannehill v. Tannehill, 88 Md.App, 4, 11, 591 A.2d 888 (1991). “[T]he amount of a child support award is [ordinarily] governed by the circumstances of the case and is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge,” and that “determination should not be disturbed unless he has acted arbitrarily in administering his discretion or was clearly wrong,” Gates v. Gates, 83 Md.App. 661, 663, 577 A.2d 382 (1990). We see nothing in the statute or elsewhere to suggest that the guidelines should not apply when a third party has custody of a child and seeks child support from the noncustodial parents. Indeed, a parent has an obligation to pay child support to a custodial third party, see Newkirk v. Newkirk, 73 Md.App. 588, 596-97, 535 A.2d 947 (1988) (<HOLDING>), and there is no reason to view the extent of
holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children holding that the recommendations of the childrens caseworker and guardian ad litem coupled with evidence of the mothers extensive drug history her incompletion of courtordered services and testimony that the children were happy and doing well in their foster homes were sufficient for the trial court to determine that termination of parental rights was in the childrens best interest holding that divorced father continued to owe child support to his childrens deceased mothers brother where she asked her brother to be the guardian of her minor children holding that an agreement between a mother and father to waive payment of child support and arrearages in exchange for fathers consent to the adoption of the minor children by the mothers husband was invalid because it violated public policy holding birth mothers samesex partner was a presumed mother    because she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children