by Commissioner Tiffany M. Poncy
In California, child support is calculated using the algebraic equation CS = K[HN - (H%)(TN)].1 Easy right? “It’s just math” . . . A phrase generally used to designate a situation as simple or straightforward because it can be reduced to quantifiable parts also gives a measure of certainty and consistency when applied to something like child support calculations. But what happens when the math changes? I found myself having to re-learn fourth grade multiplication when my child brought home a common core worksheet. The math was still “just math,” but somehow the way it behaved was very different and somewhat counterintuitive.
SB 343, the Child Support Bill, was introduced to the California State Legislature in 2023, with portions becoming law on September 1, 2024, and January 1, 2026. The September 1, 2024 amendments to the Family Code include a restructuring of guideline child support under Family Code section 4055 and a modification of the primary method of allocating child care costs and uncovered medical expenses between the parties under Family Code sections 4061, 4062, and 4063. The articulated goals of SB 343, as well as the legislative analysis, include updates to “the child support guideline and low-income adjustment to reflect the current cost of living; [and] modifies certain related provisions relating to a support award, such as what constitutes income and how childcare costs may be apportioned.” The formula is technically the same, with the same definitions and considerations, but the math as applied is actually different and the anticipated inferences from the prior formula no longer apply, especially with the newly designated income brackets.
The “K factor,” or the amount of both parents’ income to be allocated for child support as set forth in Family Code 4055, is the multiplier within the algebraic equation. It is applied differently depending on what income band the family falls into. That was always the case, but the income bands themselves were changed with the 2024 update. Side-by-side changes to the guideline calculation are reflected in Figure 1 with a description of how the resulting guideline calculation should compare to the prior iteration. Placement into a particular band is determined by the “TN,” or total net monthly disposable income of both parties. The TN itself is determined by the calculator—from the gross monthly income of the parties. This is a combined amount, which is important to note for the trends arising from application of the new formula.
Under the previous guideline calculation, which had not been updated since 1992, the highest multiplier was applied to TN income between $801-$6,666. Under the new guideline calculator, the highest multiplier is applied to TN income between $5,001-$10,000. This should result in guideline child support orders that are lower or the same for all cases except where the TN income is between $6,667-$10,000. By creating completely different bands in the revised Family Code, a guideline support order will increase, and decrease, at a different rate than before, as the TN income increases. And how does the TN income increase? By increasing the income of either party.
As a sitting Commissioner, I run guideline calculations using the program within the California Child Support Automation System-Child Support Enforcement system (CCSAS-CSE) up to 100 times per week. 2 Since the new guideline calculations took effect, I have noticed some unexpected fluctuations, especially to the lower income payors. If a person paying support has TN income below $5,001 on their own, adding almost any TN income in the column for the person receiving support (and certainly enough to move the case into the next TN income bracket) will result in an increase to the guideline amount of support to be paid—simply by adding income for the person receiving support. This phenomenon was not happening, or not happening as often or as dramatically, under the prior guideline formula.
For example, (See Figure 2: PPS is a person paying support and PRS is a person receiving support) if a person paying support earns $3,600 gross every month, under the old formula, guideline support for one child, with a zero timeshare, was $740 per month whether the person receiving support earned between zero and less than $5,400 per month, with the corresponding guideline order dropping below $740 per month as the income of the person receiving support increased beyond $5,400. Under the new formula, the guideline support is, $596 per month if the person receiving support has zero income but jumps back up to $740 per month by only adding a minimal income for the person receiving support. The guideline support obligation increases nearly $150 per month simply by adding income for the person receiving support. Again, the TN is determined by the calculator based on the gross monthly income for both parties. The guideline amount then stays at or near $740 until the person receiving support earns an income of greater than $9,000, nearly double the amount that would begin reducing the support obligation under the old formula. The new guideline calculation decreases steadily after that, but never to what it would have been under the old formula with the same factors. This “spike” upwards occurs by only adding income for the person receiving support and can be seen with payor income up to $7,000 per month. It also happens across timeshares (custodial schedules) up to less than 25%. I have not observed this spike when the person paying support has timeshare at or above a 25%.
This spike upwards with higher support order lasting across a larger income variation also impacts the new Family Code section 4061 and 4062 calculations. Childcare expenses for the purpose of seeking employment or employment-related education and reasonable health care expenses are mandatory “add-ons” when making a child support order. The prior Family Code defaulted to an allocation of 50/50—an even split of those costs, either as reimbursements between the parties or as part of the ultimate guideline order. If either parent had a daycare expense of $1,000/month so that they could go to work, the calculator would split the obligation $500 to each parent and the ultimate guideline order would be offset or added to by this add-on. Under the revised Family Code, the allocation is a percentage based of the net disposable income of the person paying support after it is paid against the net disposable income of the person receiving support before it is received.
With a higher obligation over a longer period of TN income, the pro-rata order now required for childcare expenses and reimbursement for medical expenses often leaves the person who has the child or children more often, if not full time, paying the larger percentage of these expenses. This is because a higher support obligation decreases the net disposable income of the person paying support relevant to this pro-rated calculation. This may serve to offset the behavior of the new guideline formula, but litigants appear very confused when they are ordered to cover 60-80% of the childcare costs and unreimbursed medical expenses when they have the children 100% of the time and may be receiving less in guideline child support under the new calculations. Remember, the highest multiplier for support was only increased for the $6,667-$10,000 range. For all other brackets, child support should have lowered or remained the same. So anyone outside the $6,667-$10,000 TN range will potentially receive the same or less support, and will now have to cover more of the childcare costs and unreimbursed medical expenses.
Let’s see how this works in a very common practical situation. Frank and Martha have one young child together. The child resides primarily with Frank, and Martha does not see the child. Martha works full time making minimum wage. Frank is not working. With these factors, guideline child support prior to September 2024 was $585 per month, Martha to pay Frank. If Martha made an argument that Frank was capable of also working full time minimum wage and the court found it in the best interest of the child to impute him at that level of employment, adding that income for Frank did not change the obligation of Martha and the guidelines remained $585 per month. Additionally, the parties would split 50/50 any reasonable medical expenses and add-on childcare costs, regardless of the income attributed to Frank.
Using these same factors under the September 2024 update, guideline support without any income for Frank is $381 per month, so the order does decrease initially. But if Martha makes the same argument to impute income to Frank (or Frank does also have income), guideline support increases to a range of $493-$585 per month (with a low-income adjustment for Martha) simply by adding income for Frank. Additionally, under the pro-rated split of reasonable medical expenses and add-on childcare costs, if Frank was working, he would cover 60% of those costs to Martha’s 40%, even though he has the children 100% of the time. This is based on Frank having a higher applicable net disposable income—for Frank, the court looks at his net income before he receives support, while for Martha the court looks at the net income after support is paid. If Frank did not have any actual or imputed income, Martha would need to cover 100% of those costs, in addition to the child support obligation, under the new law. So, is there an incentive for Frank to become employed and add additional TN income to the calculation? If so, he does receive a higher amount of guideline child support but is also potentially responsible for a larger percentage of the add-on costs. Or does Martha ask to impute Frank at full time minimum wage, potentially increasing the guideline support obligation, but reducing her pro-rata contribution to the additional costs?
As always, there is a learning curve in seeing how any new legislation plays out in practice and in litigation. I have been informed that the new guideline formula will undergo reporting and further analysis in its application. While the court has discretion in determining the amounts supported by the evidence for each of the guideline factors, once the guideline amount is determined by the calculator, any discretion for departure is far more limited. As practitioners discover the particular behavior of this new construct, that data may be impacted by a natural suppression of results with the requests that counsel and parties make, or do not make, of the court.
ENDNOTES
Commissioner Tiffany M. Poncy is a Commissioner for the Orange County Superior Court, currently assigned to an AB1058 department handling child support matters involving the Department of Child Support Services. She can be reached at tponcy@occourts.org.