is arbitrary and capricious. 2. Does Civil Rule 90.3 violate due process by creating an irrebuttable presumption? Jerald argues that blind application of the Civil Rule 90.3 formula denies noncustodial parents the right to a fair hearing. He believes that this is illustrated in this case by the superior court’s denying him the opportunity to question Darla concerning her expenses. As the state points out, however, Civil Rule 90.3(c)(1) specifically allows for exceptions to the formula. Other courts have found that child support guidelines do not offend due process so long as they provide for discretion in their application. Schenek v. Schenek, 161 Ariz. 580, 780 P.2d 413 (App.1989); see also In re Guidelines for Child Support Enforcement, 301 Ark. 627, 784 S.W.2d 589, 590-91 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d 1197, 1212
holding that any sentence that is properly calculated under the guidelines is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness holding that child support formula creates a rebuttable presumption and an inequitable result rebuts the presumption holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5 holding however that a first party insured is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of harm