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
© 2025 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 AllNondisparagement Clauses in Divorce: Balancing Family Harmony and Free Speech
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 2Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
- 3Jackson Lewis Leaders Discuss Firm's Innovation Efforts, From Prompt-a-Thons to Gen AI Pilots
- 4Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 5'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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