Table of Contents
Contact
States generally use one of three models to determine the base child support amount due:
The Income Shares Model is based on the concept that the child should receive the same proportion of parental income that he or she would have received if the parents lived together. In an intact household, the income of both parents is generally pooled and spent for the benefit of all household members, including any children. Forty states, Guam and the Virgin Islands use the income shares model: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, Guam, Virgin Islands.
The Percentage of Income Model sets support as a percentage of only the noncustodial parent's income; the custodial parent's income is not considered. This model has two variations: the Flat Percentage Model and the Varying Percentage Model. Seven states (Alaska, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin) use the percentage of income model. Four states (Alaska, Mississippi, Nevada and Wisconsin) use the flat percentage model while the other three states (Arkansas, North Dakota and Texas) use the varying percentage model.
The Melson Formula is a more complicated version of the Income Shares Model, which incorporates several public policy judgments designed to ensure that each parent's basic needs are met in addition to the children's. The Melson Formula was developed by a Delaware Family Court judge and fully explained in Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d 1197 (Del. 1989). Only three states (Delaware, Hawaii and Montana) use the Melson Formula.
The District of Columbia uses a hybrid model that starts as a varying percentage of income model and is then reduced by a formula based on the custodial parent's income. Use the links in the chart below to view these guidelines.
All of the guideline models have certain aspects in common. First, most of the guidelines incorporate a "self-support" reserve for the obligor. Second, all the guidelines have a provision relating to imputed income. Third, by federal regulation, all the guidelines take into consideration the health care expenses for the children, by insurance or other means. Lastly, most of the guidelines have incorporated into the presumptive child support formula special additions for child care expenses, special formulas for shared custody, split custody, and extraordinary visitation, and special deductions for the support of previous and subsequent children.
Guideline Models by State
|
State/ Territory
|
Guideline Type
|
Link to Guidelines
|
|
Alabama
|
Income Shares
|
Ala. R. Jud. Admin. R. 32
|
|
Alaska
|
Percentage of Obligor's Income
|
Alaska Civ. R. 90.3
|
|
Arizona
|
Income Shares
|
Arizona Child Support Guidelines
|
|
Arkansas
|
Percentage of Obligor's Income
|
Ark. Admin. Order of the Supreme Court, Rule 10
|
|
California
|
Income Shares
|
California Fam. Code §§ 4050-4076
|
|
Colorado
|
Income Shares
|
Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 14-10-115 et seq.
|
|
Connecticut
|
Income Shares
|
Child Support and Arrearages Guidelines
|
|
Delaware
|
Melson Formula
|
Delaware Child Support Guidelines
|
|
District of Columbia
|
Hybrid Model
|
D.C. Code Ann. § 16-916.01
|
|
Florida
|
Income Shares
|
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.30
|
|
Georgia
|
Income Shares
|
Ga. Code Ann. § 19-6-15
|
|
Guam
|
Income Shares
|
Guam Child Support Guidelines
|
|
Hawaii
|
Melson Formula
|
Hawaii Child Support Guidelines
|
|
Idaho
|
Income Shares
|
Idaho R. Civ. Pro. 6(c)(6)
|
|
Illinois
|
Income Shares
|
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 750, § 5/505 through Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 750, §5/510
|
|
Indiana
|
Income Shares
|
Indiana Child Support Rules and Guidelines
|
|
Iowa
|
Income Shares
|
Iowa Child Support Guidelines
|
|
Kansas
|
Income Shares
|
Updated Jan. 1, 2016: Kansas Admin. Order No. 261
|
|
Kentucky
|
Income Shares
|
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.212
|
|
Louisiana
|
Income Shares
|
La. Rev. Stat. 9:315.1 et seq.
|
|
Maine
|
Income Shares
|
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-A, §§ 2001-2012
|
|
Maryland
|
Income Shares
|
Md. Fam. Law Code Ann. §§ 12-201 et seq.
|
|
Massachusetts
|
Income Shares
|
Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines
|
|
Michigan
|
Income Shares
|
Michigan Child Support Formula Manual; Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605 et.seq.
|
|
Minnesota
|
Income Shares
|
Minn. Stat. Ann. §§ 518A.35 et seq.
|
|
Mississippi
|
Percentage of Obligor's Income
|
Miss. Code §§ 43-19-101 et seq.
|
|
Missouri
|
Income Shares
|
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.340
Civil Procedure Form 14
|
|
Montana
|
Melson Formula
|
Admin. R. Mont. 37.62.101 et.seq.
|
|
Nebraska
|
Income Shares
|
Nebraska Court Rules §§ 4-201 to 4-220
|
|
Nevada
|
Percentage of Obligor's Income
|
Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 125B.070 to -.085
|
|
New Hampshire
|
Income Shares
|
N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 458-C:1 to -:7
|
|
New Jersey
|
Income Shares
|
N.J. Rules of Court, Rule 5:6A, Appendix IX
|
|
New Mexico
|
Income Shares
|
N.M. Stat. §§ 40-4-11.1 to -11.6
|
|
New York
|
Income Shares
|
N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law. § 240(1-b)
|
|
North Carolina
|
Income Shares
|
North Carolina Child Support Guidelines
|
|
North Dakota
|
Percentage of Obligor's Income
|
N.D. Admin. Code §§ 75-02-04.1-01 to13; 14.09.09.7
|
|
Ohio
|
Income Shares
|
Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3119.01 et seq.
|
|
Oklahoma
|
Income Shares
|
Okla. Stat. tit. 43, §§ 118 to 120
|
|
Oregon
|
Income Shares
|
Or. Admin. Reg. 137-50-320 to -490
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
Income Shares
|
Pa. R. Civ. Pro. 1910.16-1 to -5
|
|
Rhode Island
|
Income Shares
|
R.I. C.S.G. Administrative Order
|
|
South Carolina
|
Income Shares
|
S.C. Soc. Serv. Reg. 114-4710 to -4750
|
|
South Dakota
|
Income Shares
|
S.D. Codified Laws §§ 25-7-6.1 et seq.
|
|
Tennessee
|
Income Shares
|
Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Dep’t Human Services 1240-2-4-.01 to -.057
|
|
Texas
|
Percentage of Obligor's Income
|
Tex. Fam. Code §§ 154.001 et seq.
|
|
Utah
|
Income Shares
|
Utah Code §§ 78B-12 et seq.
|
|
Vermont
|
Income Shares
|
Vt. Stat. title 15, §§ 653-657
|
|
Virginia
|
Income Shares
|
Va. Code §§ 20-108.1, 20-108.2
|
|
Washington
|
Income Shares
|
Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.19.001 et seq.
|
|
West Virginia
|
Income Shares
|
W. Va. Code Ann. §§ 48-13-101 to -803
|
|
Wisconsin
|
Percentage of Obligor's Income
|
Wis. Admin. Code DCF 150.01 to .05
|
|
Wyoming
|
Income Shares
|
Wyo. Stat. §§ 20-2-301 to -315
|
As you can see in the chart above, child support guidelines are implemented in different ways. Twenty-four states and D.C. implement the guidelines in statute, eighteen states use court rules or decisions and the remaining eight states have implemented the guidelines through administrative regulation. See the breakdown here:
Model of Implementation
|
Statute
|
California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
|
|
Administrative Regulation
|
Connecticut, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin
|
|
Court Rule or Decision
|
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
|
About This NCSL Project
NCSL staff in D.C. and Denver can provide comprehensive, thorough, and timely information on critical child support policy issues. We provide services to legislators and staff working to improve state policies affecting children and their families. NCSL's online clearinghouse for state legislators includes resources on child support policy, financing, laws, research and promising practices. Technical assistance visits to states are available to any state legislature that would like training or assistance related to this topic.
The Denver-based child support project staff focuses on state policy, tracking legislation and providing research and policy analysis, consultation, and technical assistance specifically geared to the legislative audience. Denver staff can be reached at (303) 364-7700 or cyf-info@ncsl.org.
NCSL staff in Washington, D.C. track and analyze federal legislation and policy and represent state legislatures on child support issues before Congress and the Administration. Staff in D.C. can be reached at (202) 624-5400 or cyf-info@ncsl.org.
The child support project and D.C. human services staff receive guidance and support from NCSL's Standing Committee on Health & Human Services.
Additional Resources