Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
his monthly child support obligation. We note, however, that Mother cross-petitioned and received a judgment against Father for child support arrearages. The family court did not make a specific finding of which party prevailed and such a determination is not necessary to resolve the issue here. Even assuming Father was the “prevailing party” on his petition to reduce child support, we nonetheless reject his position that AR.S. § 25-503(E) prevents the family court from awarding fees to the non-prevailing party. ¶ 8 The use of the word “may” in A.R.S. § 25-503(E) provides the family court broad discretion to decide whether to award attorney fees to the prevailing party on a request to modify child support. See Alejandro v. Harrison, 223 Ariz. 21, 24, ¶ 10, 219 P.3d 231, 234 (App.2009) . And, contrary to Father’s argument, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that a statutes use of may when describing the courts authority generally connotes discre tion
B. recognizing the medicare statutes broad delegation of authority
C. holding use of word may generally indicates permissive rather than mandatory intent
D. recognizing only state courts may authoritatively construe state statutes
E. recognizing that cases have generally treated statutory exceptions from remedial statutes as affirmative defenses
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.