clearly states that a trial court may modify an award of support upon certain conditions being satisfied. This court has often recognized that the word “may” is usually employed as implying permissive or discretionary, rather than mandatory, action or conduct and is construed in a permissive sense unless necessary to give effect to an intent to which it is used. Gonzales v. City of DeWitt, 357 Ark. 10, 159 S.W.3d 298 (2004); Cortinez v. Arkansas Supreme Court Comm. on Prof' l Conduct, 353 Ark. 104, 111 S.W.3d 369 (2003); Marcum v. Wengert, 344 Ark. 153, 40 S.W.3d 230 (2001). Accordingly, the trial court was not required to exercise its jurisdiction over OCSE’s petition, and we affirm its order, although for a different reason. See Thomas v. Avant, 370 Ark. 377, 260 S.W.3d 266 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Circuit court affirmed; Court of Appeals
recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record holding that it is axiomatic that this court can affirm a circuit court if the right result is reached even if for a different reason holding that we may affirm a district court if its holding was right for any reason holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds