Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): are not relevant to our analysis. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(8)(a)(iv)-(vii) (Supp.2007). 2 . Petitioner also argues, based upon certain language used by the district court, that the increases in alimony were actually intended to be child support for those children who had reached majority, but who were still living with Respondent. It is well settled that a parent's child support obligation terminates when a child reaches majority, and alimony is not a substitute for child support. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-12-102(6), -105(1) (2008). We do not find, however, that the district court intended the increased amount to be child support disguised as alimony, and accordingly do not address Petitioner's argument on this point. 3 . See, eg., Nelson v. Nelson, 2004 UT App 254, ¶ 7, 97 P.3d 722 (<HOLDING>); Howell v. Howell, 806 P.2d 1209, 1212 (Utah 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a petition to change alimony based upon the husbands imminent retirement was not ripe because the planned retirement was not an actual substantial material change in circumstances 97 quoting utah code ann  30358gi supp2003 (B) holding that former husband was not entitled to evidentiary hearing on petition to modify alimony where he failed to demonstrate substantial change in circumstances since entry of a prior order denying modification of alimony from which he did not appeal (C) holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits (D) holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances (E) holding that a permanent change in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a reduction of alimony
Output (English): holding that former husband was not entitled to evidentiary hearing on petition to modify alimony where he failed to demonstrate substantial change in circumstances since entry of a prior order denying modification of alimony from which he did not appeal