Is there is cap or a ceiling to how much child support a noncustodial parent can pay?

I know all states has their formula to set child and medical supports, many times based on both parents' income. It is fair to say, the more a noncustodial parent makes, the more the custodial parent will get?

Example:

If a noncustodial parent is set to pay $1,750/month now for one child based on a $15,000/month income, then what happens when this same parent makes $30,000/month? I can't see how a one child general expenses (insurance, day care, food and shelter) can be in need of $3,500/month?! Can we say a new car payment or shopping spree for the custodial parent? There's got to be a ceiling right?!

There was a HUGE discussion on Dr. Phil about this after he had an Ex NBA star on his show who was ordered to pay crazy amounts of child support to several women (he fathered several children with several different women). You might be able to find the thread if you search for "Dead Beat Dads or Dead Broke?"

As far as I know, child support does not automatically go up when the income of one parent changes. Someone needs to petition for a modification of child support in order for that to happen. But... here's another example:

Let's say the CP files for a modification based on their *belief* the NCP is making $30,000/mo (using your numbers). The NCP will get a letter from the enforcing agency and will have X number of days to respond. The burden of proof will be on the NCP to show that they are NOT making $30,000/mo. As the CP has alleged. If the NCP does not respond (BAD IDEA), the CP will win by default and the new support will be based on the alleged income.

Also - if the NCP loses that $15,000/mo. Job through no fault of their own, the existing order will continue at the amount set based on the $15,000/mo. UNTIL the NCP petitions the court for a downward motion (let's say they were able to find another job, but it only paid $10,000/mo.) It's possible to get the downward motion, but sometimes very difficult, depending on the caseworker, judge, and how hard the CP will fight to maintain the current support.

Keep in mind too - any time you need to file something with the court, it will take time to process. In other words, there will be delays :(

*EDIT*
I forgot to add that the maximum should be specified in the state child support calculation guidelines. In Oregon, they can take up to 60% *I think* and up to 65% if you're paying for multiple children with multiple CP's. They have to leave you (get this) $953 for self support. They take this "self-support" off the top when figuring "income available for support" and calc from there.

There was a HUGE discussion on Dr. Phil about this after he had an Ex NBA star on his show who was ordered to pay crazy amounts of child support to several women (he fathered several children with several different women). You might be able to find the thread if you search for "Dead Beat Dads or Dead Broke?"

As far as I know, child support does not automatically go up when the income of one parent changes. Someone needs to petition for a modification of child support in order for that to happen. But... here's another example:

Let's say the CP files for a modification based on their *belief* the NCP is making $30,000/mo (using your numbers). The NCP will get a letter from the enforcing agency and will have X number of days to respond. The burden of proof will be on the NCP to show that they are NOT making $30,000/mo. as the CP has alleged. If the NCP does not respond (BAD IDEA), the CP will win by default and the new support will be based on the alleged income.

Also - if the NCP loses that $15,000/mo. job through no fault of their own, the existing order will continue at the amount set based on the $15,000/mo. UNTIL the NCP petitions the court for a downward motion (let's say they were able to find another job, but it only paid $10,000/mo.) It's possible to get the downward motion, but sometimes very difficult, depending on the caseworker, judge, and how hard the CP will fight to maintain the current support.

Keep in mind too - any time you need to file something with the court, it will take time to process. In other words, there will be delays :(

Yes, a modification for support is always necessary and I can see how a NCP needs to pay an insane amount of child support if you have "hoes in differenct area codes" (it's a song), but for one child though?

If the CP continues to modify for support annually and if the NCP income increases every year, is there a ceiling to pay for just one kid? There's got to be! I'm sure it all varies from state to state!

Yes, a modification for support is always necessary and I can see how a NCP needs to pay an insane amount of child support if you have "hoes in differenct area codes" (it's a song), but for one child though?

If the CP continues to modify for support annually and if the NCP income increases every year, is there a ceiling to pay for just one kid?! There's got to be! I'm sure it all varies from state to state!

Search and read through your state guidelines. Many of this information should be posted there. Also - the court isn't going to like reviewing support orders frequently and the increase has to be significant enough for them to bother. I'm speaking from what I know in the Oregon courts, but I was told that if my income went up 2%, the court isn't going to want to bother with running the numbers again. The increase would be so minute, it would be a waste of their time

There are not really max amounts, but you can request a deviation from the forumla if you can prove it is not needed.

What you are forgetting, a person making 40,000 a month, that family is used to a different life style, and child support is suppose to help keep the child at a standard of living they are used to.

There are not really max amounts, but you can request a deviation from the forumla if you can prove it is not needed.

What you are forgetting, a person making 40,000 a month, that family is used to a different life style, and child support is suppose to help keep the child at a standard of living they are used to.

Agrees - that's how the court sees it. They want the child(ren) to have as little adverse affect as possible.

What you are forgetting, a person making 40,000 a month, that family is used to a different life style, and child support is suppose to help keep the child at a standard of living they are used to.

You're assuming if a couple gets a divorce and the child in question is "used to the lifestyle" prior to the divorce.

I'm talking about CP and NCP never was married, child had always been with the CP living a moderate average American lifestyle (no MTV Cribs or anything), and the NCP makes a lot more than the CP.

I just can't seem to swallow $3000+ per month for just one child for support!! Ridiculous! It's like that child now has an income that is more than 65% of the adult US working population! Or at least the CP will.

In many states there is a ceiling on how high child support can be. In some there is no ceiling. It all depends on where you live. Irregaurdless the federal maximum for child support is 50%. The states are not allowed to go over that amount. The only offset is arrears and then the limit is 60% of gross or down to poverty line.

Child support is about making a child's living equal in both parents' environment, it is capped at a certain percentage, but if one parent is making an exhorbant amount of money, paying his percentage of child support should equal a childs' quality of living in both environments.

It also helps to prevent a child for being spoiled in one environment and not in the other.

Child support is about making a child's living equal in both parents' environment, it is capped at a certain percentage, but if one parent is making an exhorbant amount of money, paying his percentage of child support should equal a childs' quality of living in both environments.

It also helps to prevent a child for being spoiled in one environment and not in the other.

This is only a theory. Child support does nothing of the sort to equal out the living environments of the 2 homes. Most child support is set to a punative level so to keep one side quite while the other side continues as if the relationship continued. The level of income between the custodial parent and the non custodial parent as a household doesn't equal in most cases where the ncp is making a decent wage. The only way to offset it is for the ncp to degrade their living style. Just take a look at the numbers.

In many states there is a ceiling on how high child support can be. In some there is no ceiling. It all depends on where you live. Irregaurdless the federal maximum for child support is 50%. The states are not allowed to go over that amount. The only offset is arrears and then the limit is 60% of gross or down to poverty line.

This is what I read too, dad (only I couldn't find the section of Oregon law that specified). Maximum of 50% for current child support (or up to 55% for multiple orders) or 60% to pay off arrears (or 65% for multiple orders). If I find that section, I'll post as an edit.

Is there is cap or a ceiling to how much child support a noncustodial parent can pay?

I know all states has their formula to set child and medical supports, many times based on both parents' income. It is fair to say, the more a noncustodial parent makes, the more the custodial parent will get?

Example:

If a noncustodial parent is set to pay $1,750/month now for one child based on a $15,000/month income, then what happens when this same parent makes $30,000/month? I can't see how a one child general expenses (insurance, day care, food and shelter) can be in need of $3,500/month?!! Can we say a new car payment or shopping spree for the custodial parent?! There's got to be a ceiling right?!!

Actually every state adopted the same formula and basics for family court effective July 2 1999, and yes there is a cap, your ex has to prove beond a reasonable doubt that the exspenses for the child warent an increase in support, and you have to prove that they don't just because your income or his income became higher does not mean the support will go up its all based on the income she and you make, its not just one person if both of your income is equal to the basic support to the child, the court will (NOT) increase the support previously orderd but you do have to modify your income with the court or face contept harison v. patricia Montana superme court 1989

actualy every state adopted the same formula and basics for family court effective july 2 1999, and yes there is a cap, your ex has to prove beond a reasonable doubt that the exspenses for the child warent an increase in support, and you have to prove that they dont just because your income or his income became higher does not mean the support will go up its all based on the income she and you make, its not just one person if both of your income is equal to the basic support to the child, the court will (NOT) increase the support previously orderd but you do have to modify your income with the court or face contept harison v. patricia montana superme court 1989


I have read Harison vs Montana (which you posted) and I do not read it the same way you read it. I also know that NJ has NO cap on support. I have not researched the other States.

Please explain the case as you interpret it.

This is all hypothetical, of course, since anyone even approaching the dollar cap of support can easily afford to have a lawyer answer this question instead of coming on the internet to ask.

actualy every state adopted the same formula and basics for family court effective july 2 1999, and yes there is a cap, your ex has to prove beond a reasonable doubt that the exspenses for the child warent an increase in support, and you have to prove that they dont just because your income or his income became higher does not mean the support will go up its all based on the income she and you make, its not just one person if both of your income is equal to the basic support to the child, the court will (NOT) increase the support previously orderd but you do have to modify your income with the court or face contept harison v. patricia montana superme court 1989

This isn't even close to correct. Many states differ from each other as to how child support is calculated. In some its by simple percentage while in others there is a formula to follow. Each state has the right to set its own policy until it exceeds federal maximums set by law. That's the whole point of the supporting laws.. to prevent " state " shopping when going for child support.

Where is this coming from??

This isnt even close to correct. Many states differ from eachother as to how child support is calculated. In some its by simple percentage while in others there is a formula to follow. Each state has the right to set its own policy until it exceeds federal maximums set by law. Thats the whole point of the supporting laws .. to prevent " state " shopping when going for child support.

Where is this coming from ?????????



Read some of the other posts when you get a chance - I certainly don't read this the way this person does and am still waiting for his interpretation.

In the meantime I also have no idea what he's talking about.

This is all hypothetical, of course, since anyone even approaching the dollar cap of support can easily afford to have a lawyer answer this question instead of coming on the internet to ask.

Agrees... to a point. Each situation is different but if I were assessed 50% (this would most likely mean I was supporting several children; not just one), I would be below the national poverty level.

At any rate - many lawyers offer consults for free or for a reduced rate.

Take a look at Louisiana's calculations, according to their formula (combined parent's MONTHLY gross income levels)...

DAMN, one child can be as much as $2,653 if the combined monthly income is $30,000!

Child Support Schedule - Above $20k AGI | Department of Social Services | State of Louisiana (http://www.dss.state.la.us/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=143)

Considering that up until 2 years ago, I didn't make $30k a YEAR, much less in a month... I'm not that sympathetic.

If you make that much, and you have a kid, then either pony up to make sure that kid has the best life that you can help provide---or go back to court and get custody.

Why SHOULD there be a cap? That would mean that if Bill and Melinda split, he'd only have to give up to that cap in child support for 3 kids, rather than the unlimited (pretty much) money that they're used to.

And even if a kid were NOT used to a certain level of living---what kind of parent doesn't want to give money to support their child?

Considering that up until 2 years ago, I didn't make $30k a YEAR, much less in a month....I'm not that sympathetic.

If you make that much, and you have a kid, then either pony up to make sure that kid has the best life that you can help provide---or go back to court and get custody.

Oh lets not be too naive here, when someone is receiving $3,000/month for support to one child, do you really think all that money is used for child expenses by the CP? Ahhh, I don't think so!

Why SHOULD there be a cap? That would mean that if Bill and Melinda split, he'd only have to give up to that cap in child support for 3 kids, rather than the unlimited (pretty much) money that they're used to.

We're talking about if situation only applies to one child here.....if the NCP continues to make lots of $$, isn't ridiculous to continue to increase that one child's support to infinity? Of course, it's unreasonable! There's got to be a point where after the NCP makes X-amount, the CP can only get certain amount (i.e. $3500/month for one child is max no matter how much the NCP makes after certain income level).

And even if a kid were NOT used to a certain level of living---what kind of parent doesn't want to give money to support their child?

I'll tell you what kind of parent doesn't want to give money to support their child, the kind that wants nothing to do with the child because the CP f-ed it up! There are many circumstances where the NCP wants nothing to do with the child.



Whether anyone likes a ceiling to support or not, every state differs in their calculations. It is what it is. Whether one likes it or not, once the support is order, got to do what it says.

You're absolutely right, if one a child and their CP is receiving >$1,500/month from the NCP, the only thing that the NCP can do is to make more $$ to make that support payment small!

It depends on the guidelines for your particular state. If you're speaking of an increase in child support due to an increase in your income, that can happen if the CP files a motion for modification with the court that issued the original order. In my state, in order to get a child support order modified, the petitioner must show an appreciable change in circumstances. A substantial increase in income, such as may occur with getting a new job more lucrative than your previous one, would constitute such a change in circumstance.

So... why hasn't the NCP stepped in BEFORE the mother "f'd the child up" to do the responsible thing and raise the child?

Frankly, I don't CARE who pays for your kid---as long as it's you or your family or the other parent or their family. Not ME, as a taxpayer.

If you can afford $3k in child support payments, then frankly--you can afford to fight for custody and put the kid in therapy. THAT is where the cap is---you become custodial parent.

WayTooMuch - please read your PM's :)

\Oh lets not be too naive here, when someone is receiving $3,000/month for support to one child, do you really think all that money is used for child expenses by the CP? Ahhh, I don't think so!

I'll tell you what kind of parent doesn't want to give money to support their child, the kind that wants nothing to do with the child because the CP f-ed it up! There are many circumstances where the NCP wants nothing to do with the child.



The question is whether there is a cap on the amount of money the non-custodial parent has to pay. I don't see that being addressed here. I see various answers about how to obtain an increase but I don't see anything specific about a cap.

As far as the "let's not be too naive here" - I don't find a $3,000 a month support payment to feed, clothe, house, educate a child to be out of the ballpart nor do I find that amount will allow the custodial parent to live in the lap of luxury. What is your basis for the "Ahhh - I don't think so" part?

As far as the non-custodial parent not wanting anything to do with a child (including supporting the child) because the child was f*ed up (your language, not mine) by the custodial parent - who decided to HAVE a child with the custodial parent in the first place? This is another occasion where following the divorce the "other" parent is totally unstable, unsuitable and possibly crazy. So don't have children with these people.

But back to the subject at hand - which is a cap on the amount of child support.

I think after reading all of your posts...

None of you know. The answer is "there is no ceiling!"

The more a NCP makes, the more CP wants and the more the court will order.

There SHOULD be a ceiling on how much a NCP should pay for ONE child after certain income level, but every state is different.

Bottom line, get a girl pregnant, grab a bottle of Vaseline, and assume position!

I think after reading all of your posts....

None of you know. The answer is "there is no ceiling!"

The more a NCP makes, the more CP wants and the more the court will order.

There SHOULD be a ceiling on how much a NCP should pay for ONE child after certain income level, but every state is different.

Bottom line, get a girl pregnant, grab a bottle of Vaseline, and assume position!You got it, pal! Unless you want to spend the equivalent of buying a house over the next 18 or so years, keep it in your pants!

I think after reading all of your posts....

None of you know. The answer is "there is no ceiling!"

The more a NCP makes, the more CP wants and the more the court will order.

There SHOULD be a ceiling on how much a NCP should pay for ONE child after certain income level, but every state is different.

Bottom line, get a girl pregnant, grab a bottle of Vaseline, and assume position!

What kills me about this is that it's not the CHILD'S fault.

If you don't want to pay child support, then get custody.

It's really the CHILD that's getting screwed with attitudes like this.

What kills me about this is that it's not the CHILD'S fault.

If you don't want to pay child support, then get custody.

it's really the CHILD that's getting screwed with attitudes like this.

Well that is the theory my ex uses, of course the outcome of fighting over a child is just as damaging to a child. Especially when joint custody isn't feasible.

I wouldn't say that fighting for custody to avoid child support is always the best option.

I think after reading all of your posts....

None of you know. The answer is "there is no ceiling!"

The more a NCP makes, the more CP wants and the more the court will order.

There SHOULD be a ceiling on how much a NCP should pay for ONE child after certain income level, but every state is different.

Bottom line, get a girl pregnant, grab a bottle of Vaseline, and assume position!

I hate to burst anyone's bubble and that's why I was waiting to post this. But there are maximums that exist in the legal system. AND... Here's your proof.

SupportGuidelines.com | Child Support in High Income Cases (http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art200302.html)


California has always had a maximum amount and I see that many other states do also.