as possible under the financial circumstances in which the two parents find themselves. Greater weight, then, must be given to the standard of living and circumstances of each parent, their earning capacities, and the “relative financial means of parents” than to any of the other factors [delineated in NRS 125B.060 and NRS 125B.080], Id. at 551, 779 P.2d at 536. In addition, we noted that “[i]f, for example, the secondary custodian has a much higher standard of living, greater earning capacity and considerably greater financial means than the pri mary custodian, the courts must be careful not to allow unwarranted reductions in the formula amount being paid by such a secondary custodian to the primary custodian.” Id.; accord Lewis v. Hicks, 108 Nev. 1107, 1112, 843 P.2d 828, 832 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Herz v. Gabler-Herz, 107 Nev. 117,
holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a holding that trial court must consider both statutory and nonstatutory mitigating factors recognizing that a trial judge might properly consider spousal contributions where they have a significant impact on recognized statutory factors such as the parents standards of living or their relative financial means recognizing that other facts can make factors such as the highcrime neighborhood  more significant holding that consideration of most of avery factors is insufficient where administrative law judge failed to consider claimants daily living activities