Texas Child Support Increases Sept. 1: Could You Be Affected?
4 Key Points to Watch For
August 15, 2019 at 12:45 PM
5 minute read
In June, the Office of Attorney General for the State of Texas announced that the maximum amount of child support that can be ordered under the Texas Child Support Guidelines will increase effective Sept. 1. This change in the law will, in effect, raise the amount of maximum child support under the Texas Child Support Guidelines from $1,710 per month to $1,840 per month for one child.
Those who are currently paying child support or receiving child support, or those who may be doing so soon, could be affected.
1. What is the Change?
Under the Texas Child Support Guidelines, child support is determined based on one’s net monthly resources, i.e., income received per month less specific enumerated deductions. Once one’s net monthly resources are calculated by the court, then a percentage is applied based upon the number of children before the court (i.e., 20% for one child, 25% for two children, 30% for three children, etc.). However, the Texas Child Support Guidelines provide a “cap” on the amount of net monthly resources that can be used to calculate child support. This “cap” means that no matter how much one person may make in net monthly resources each month, the Texas Family Code limits or caps that amount which, in turn, limits or caps the amount of child support one has to pay. Currently, that “cap” is set at $8,550.00 in net monthly resources, but it will increase to $9,200.00 on Sept. 1. This change in the law has the effect of increasing the amount of maximum child support under the Texas Child Support Guidelines for one child from $1,710.00 to $1,840.00 (i.e., 20% of $8,550.00 versus 20% of $9,200.00).
The Texas Family Code does allow one to request an amount of child support that deviates from the amounts as calculated by the Texas Child Support Guidelines (i.e., “above-guideline child support”), but those are typically rare circumstances.
2. Why is this “Cap” Being Increased?
Every six years, the Texas Legislature adjusts the “cap” for determining child support under the Texas Child Support Guidelines to reflect changes in inflation based on the CPI (consumer price index). As such, the last automatic adjustment to the child support laws occurred in 2013. Now, in 2019, the Texas Legislature, again, adjusted the “cap” based on the Attorney General’s calculation of the increase in CPI.
3. How Does this New “Cap” Work Exactly?
This new “cap” affects each person differently depending on his or her net monthly resources, and when his or her child support obligation is calculated.
If one’s net monthly resources are less than $8,550.00, his or her child support obligation will NOT change on Sept. 1. Why? If one’s net monthly resources are less than the current “cap,” they are also less than the new “cap,” and nothing changes for that individual. For example: If one’s net monthly resources are $3,000.00, and that party has two children, then, the obligation will be $750.00 per month ($3,000.00 x 25% for two children). The “cap” never comes into play.
If someone is currently going through litigation, and that individual’s net monthly resources exceed $8,550 and the court orders child support prior to September 1, 2019, the Texas Child Support Guidelines will mandate that the Court apply the appropriate child support percentage only to the first $8,550 in net monthly resources based on the number of children. However, if the Court orders child support after Sept. 1, the calculation will be the same as before but the “cap” increases, and the Texas Child Support Guidelines will mandate that the Court apply the appropriate child support percentage to the first $9,200.00 in net monthly resources. Thus, if someone’s net monthly resources are $10,000.00, the maximum guideline child support for one child is $1,840.00 ($9,200 x 20%) beginning September 1, 2019.
4. Can my Support Obligation Increase Automatically based on this “New Cap”?
No, there are no automatic increases for future child support obligations. Texas family law courts, and the Texas Attorney General, cannot order automatic increases for future child support payments. However, persons with net monthly resources exceeding $8,550 can be ordered to pay an increased amount in the future through a suit for modification.
Whether by agreement, or by court intervention, any change in the child support obligation requires modification of the order for child support. A verbal agreement or informal agreement to modify the child support obligation will not suffice and will not be enforceable.
KoonsFuller Dallas Shareholder Rebecca Rowan’s family law practice focuses on complex marital property cases, child support solutions, premarital and post marital agreements and family law appeals. She is Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has received many notable accolades, including being named among The Best Lawyers in America© in family by Best Lawyers and Co., LLC (2019) as well as honored as a 2019 Up-and-Coming 100 Texas Rising Star and 2019 Up-and-Coming 50 Women Texas Rising Star by Thomson Reuters. Visit koonsfuller.com to learn more.
A native Houstonian, KoonsFuller family law attorney Serena Hudson assists clients with divorce, child custody, child support, and prenuptials and postnuptial agreements cases among other family law related matters. Serena was been named among ReviewIt’s Top Lawyers in 2018. Visit koonsfuller.com to learn more.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250