In Tompkins v. Tompkins, 843 So.2d 759 (Ala.Civ.App.2002), the stay-at-home wife submitted an itemized estimate of $11,570, representing the monthly living expenses for herself and one child. Mrs. Tompkins testified that she needed $3,000 per month for the child’s support; the trial court awarded her $2,500. This court affirmed, stating that because the record indicated that the child had participated in several extracurricular activities, that she had enjoyed the use of her parents’ two vacation homes, and that she had “had the benefit of a somewhat privileged lifestyle,” 843 So.2d at 763, the trial court’s child-support award was neither plainly and palpably wrong nor beyond the limits of the court’s discretion. See also TenEyck v. TenEyck, 885 So.2d 146, 158 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). The husband in this case did not take issue
holding that where the guideline range is higher than the statutory maximum sentence the court should depart from the lowest range that could support the statutory maximum holding that trial court did not err in imputing income to wife for purposes of child support based on the continued monthly payment of wifes living expenses by wifes mother holding that where the defendants sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum and the district court applies the guidelines as advisory the district court does not err by enhancing the defendants sentence based on facts not charged in the indictment or admitted by him holding that the wifes testimony outlining the family living expenses constituted evidence from which the trial court could find that  the needs of the children exceed  the maximum support pursuant to the guidelines  holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines