(2021) (“Where questions of law and statutory interpretation are presented, this Court reviews them de novo[.]”). With respect to factual findings, we “give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses[,]” Md. Rule 8-131(c), reviewing the evidence to determine whether the court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous, by asking whether “there is competent or material evidence in the record to support the court’s conclusion.” Lemley v. Lemley, 109 Md. App. 620, 628 (1996). Finally, on the ultimate conclusion about what the terms of a guardianship will be, we will not disturb the trial court’s decision “unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Meddings, 244 Md. App. at 220. In this context, abuse of discretion may exist when “‘no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the . . . court,’” “when the court acts ‘without reference to any guiding rules or principles[,]’” or when “the ruling under consideration is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court[.]’” In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598, 347 Md. 295, 312 (1997) (quoting North v. North, 102 Md. App. 1, 13 (1994)). Appellate Challenges As William points out, he and Parents “both question the Circuit Court’s navigation of the [Act], but for different reasons.” Parents contend that the court committed legal error by “associating” William’s “capacity to vote with the level of capacity needed for him to request appointment of supporters under the” Act. Moreover, Parents argue the court erred in failing to rule on their requests to “appoint” them as supported decisionmakers and two others as successor supported decision-makers. 23