Dedicated Experience in Family Law on Your Side.
California Family Code
Family Code section 4055
4055
<Section operative Jan. 1, 2018. See, also, section operative until Jan. 1, 2018.>
(a) The statewide uniform guideline for determining child support orders is as follows: CS = K[HN - (H%)(TN)].
(b)(1) The components of the formula are as follows:
(A) CS = child support amount.
(B) K = amount of both parents' income to be allocated for child support as set forth in paragraph (3).
(C) HN = high earner's net monthly disposable income.
(D) H% = approximate percentage of time that the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children compared to the other parent. In cases in which parents have different time-sharing arrangements for different children, H% equals the average of the approximate percentages of time the high earner parent spends with each child.
(E) TN = total net monthly disposable income of both parties.
(2) To compute net disposable income, see Section 4059 .
(3) K (amount of both parents' income allocated for child support) equals one plus H% (if H% is less than or equal to 50 percent) or two minus H% (if H% is greater than 50 percent) times the following fraction:
|
Total Net Disposable |
|||
|
Income Per Month |
K |
|
$0-800 |
0.20 + TN/16,000 |
|
|
$801-6,666 |
0.25 |
|
|
$6,667-10,000 |
0.10 + 1,000/TN |
|
|
Over $10,000 |
0.12 + 800/TN |
For example, if H% equals 20 percent and the total monthly net disposable income of the parents is $1,000, K = (1 + 0.20) x 0.25, or 0.30. If H% equals 80 percent and the total monthly net disposable income of the parents is $1,000, K = (2 - 0.80) x 0.25, or 0.30.
(4) For more than one child, multiply CS by:
|
2 children |
1.6 |
|
|
3 children |
2 |
|
|
4 children |
2.3 |
|
|
5 children |
2.5 |
|
|
6 children |
2.625 |
|
|
7 children |
2.75 |
|
|
8 children |
2.813 |
|
|
9 children |
2.844 |
|
|
10 children |
2.86 |
(5) If the amount calculated under the formula results in a positive number, the higher earner shall pay that amount to the lower earner. If the amount calculated under the formula results in a negative number, the lower earner shall pay the absolute value of that amount to the higher earner.
(6) In any default proceeding where proof is by affidavit pursuant to Section 2336 , or in any proceeding for child support in which a party fails to appear after being duly noticed, H% shall be set at zero in the formula if the noncustodial parent is the higher earner or at 100 if the custodial parent is the higher earner, where there is no evidence presented demonstrating the percentage of time that the noncustodial parent has primary physical responsibility for the children. H% shall not be set as described above if the moving party in a default proceeding is the noncustodial parent or if the party who fails to appear after being duly noticed is the custodial parent. A statement by the party who is not in default as to the percentage of time that the noncustodial parent has primary physical responsibility for the children shall be deemed sufficient evidence.
(7) In all cases in which the net disposable income per month of the obligor is less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the obligor is entitled to a low-income adjustment. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence showing that the application of the low-income adjustment would be unjust and inappropriate in the particular case. In determining whether the presumption is rebutted, the court shall consider the principles provided in Section 4053 , and the impact of the contemplated adjustment on the respective net incomes of the obligor and the obligee. The low-income adjustment shall reduce the child support amount otherwise determined under this section by an amount that is no greater than the amount calculated by multiplying the child support amount otherwise determined under this section by a fraction, the numerator of which is 1,000 minus the obligor's net disposable income per month, and the denominator of which is 1,000.
(8) Unless the court orders otherwise, the order for child support shall allocate the support amount so that the amount of support for the youngest child is the amount of support for one child, and the amount for the next youngest child is the difference between that amount and the amount for two children, with similar allocations for additional children. However, this paragraph does not apply to cases in which there are different time-sharing arrangements for different children or where the court determines that the allocation would be inappropriate in the particular case.
(c) If a court uses a computer to calculate the child support order, the computer program shall not automatically default affirmatively or negatively on whether a low-income adjustment is to be applied. If the low-income adjustment is applied, the computer program shall not provide the amount of the low-income adjustment. Instead, the computer program shall ask the user whether or not to apply the low-income adjustment, and if answered affirmatively, the computer program shall provide the range of the adjustment permitted by paragraph (7) of subdivision (b).
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.
This book, written By Paul A. Eads, helps readers know how to prepare before they initiate a legal endeavor and helps make the legal terms of family law issues easier to understand.
Client Testimonials
See What Others Are Saying
-
"Mr. Eads, you are a true master in your field and I will always be available should any of your prospective clients want to contact me as a reference."Mr. Eads, you are a true master in your field.- Peter K.
-
"Mr. Eads worked hard for me and I am confident he will do the same for you."My ex boyfriend was very abusive. His attorney seemed to be very aggressive and was always filing Ex Parte (emergency) hearings for me to appear in court. Due to a cost issue, I attempted to handle matters myself but it seemed that I could not get my point accrues to the judge who seemed to be familiar with my ex boyfriend’s attorney. I found Mr. Eads in the phonebook and I thought I would give him a call. Mr. Eads was able to get the restraining order I was seeking and my ex boyfriend ended up paying Mr. Eads’ attorney fees. I can now feel rest-assured that my daughter and I will be safe. I also happy that I do not have to deal with my ex’s attorney anymore. Mr. Eads worked hard for me and I am confident he will do the same for you.- K.Y.
-
"He was very sympathetic to my cause and was very reassuring when I needed his assistance."I was very pleased with the outcome of my case.- Albert N.
-
"I was barely able to make ends meet. Mr. Eads worked out a payment plan with me and reduced my arrears."I will be able to pay it off quicker and with more money left over with the payment Mr. Eads was able to negotiate for me.- John H.
-
"The outcome was much more than I ever expected to receive."My previous attorney failed to show up for my court date and as a result, the matter was set for trial without any input from my side. I desperately sought out an attorney but most of them wanted a huge retainer up front. I found Mr. Eads and when I went in for a consultation, I found that his retainer was more than reasonable. I also liked the fact that he practices exclusively family law and seems very familiar with the local judicial officers. I felt very comfortable with Mr. Eads in my corner going into my trial and I found that the outcome was much more than I ever expected to receive. Mr. Eads was very thorough in my case evaluation and helped me get everything I was entitled to.- J.L.
-
"Mr. Eads when to bat for me and in my opinion, hit a home run."I decided to hire Mr. Eads based on his experience and the fact that his practice is limited to Family Law.- Veronica S.
-
"Mr. Eads was able to help structure a settlement that allowed me to keep my business while sharing the business debts with my ex."I am a business owner and when I got divorced, I was terrified that I would lose my business. My business was also heavily leveraged against and I did not have enough capitol to sustain the business and pay my wife spousal support. My ex had an attorney who was very intimidating and kept pressuring me to liquidate the business so that I could pay his attorney’s fees. I was referred to Mr. Eads by a friend. Mr. Eads was able to help structure a settlement that allowed me to keep my business while sharing the business debts with my ex. I was also able to shorten my spousal support obligation. I really appreciate Mr. Eads professionalism and guidance during these difficult times.- J.A.
-
"Not only did Mr. Eads get my daughter returned to me, I was able to have full physical custody."I am honored to write this review for Mr. Eads after he helped reunify me with my daughter after my ex abducted her and moved to Arizona. I was devastated when I came home from work to find my ex had left with all our daughter’s belongings. I called the police who told me I needed to hire an attorney. I came across Mr. Eads’ website and I was impressed with his bio. I contacted him immediately and within days, we were in court requesting that my the DA Abduction unit assist me in the return of my daughter. Not only did Mr. Eads get my daughter returned to me, I was able to have full physical custody and my ex has summer and holiday visitation. Mr. Eads is truly my hero. Thanks Mr. Eads!- Paul W.