law be pre-empted in the area of child support enforcement, we hold that federal law does not pre-empt certain portions of the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines. Plaintiff Rodney Row (“Plaintiff’) and Defendant Leigh Row (“Defendant”) married in 1991 and had two children, born in 1991 and 1995. The parties separated in 1999 and on 24 January 2001, the trial court entered an order awarding the parties joint custody, with primary physical custody given to Defendant and ordered Plaintiff to pay child support in the amount of $700.00 per month. Thereafter, the parties filed several motions to modify custody and child support resulting in the first appeal to this Court in which we affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. See Row v. Row, 158 N.C. App. 744, 582 S.E.2d 80 (2003) (<HOLDING>). On 2 February 2004, Plaintiff moved to modify
holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the best interest of the children require the continuation of primary physical custody with defendant and secondary custody with plaintiff and the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law for this court to determine whether the guidelines were followed holding that even under an abuse of discretion standard the trial court must    make sufficient find ings of fact and conclusions of law to allow the reviewing court to determine whether a judgment and the legal conclusions that underlie it represent a correct application of the law holding that the primary and overarching consideration in custody determination is the best interest of the child holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the surname of the child where the court made factual findings that the name change would be in the best interest of the child