The math: how Texas calculates child support.
Texas child support is formula-driven. Texas Family Code § 154.125 sets guideline support as a percentage of the obligor’s net monthly resources: 20% for one child, 25% for two, 30% for three, 35% for four, 40% for five, and not less than 40% for six or more. The percentage runs against net resources, not gross income, which is the part most people get wrong on the back of an envelope.
The calculation has three steps. First, calculate the obligor’s gross monthly income from all sources. Second, subtract the statutory deductions (federal income tax on the single rate, Social Security, union dues, and the cost of the children’s health and dental insurance) to arrive at net resources. Third, apply the guideline percentage and check it against the § 154.130 cap. The result is presumptively in the child’s best interest. A judge can deviate, but the order has to say why.
”Net resources,“
line by line.
Section 154.062 defines net resources broadly. The starting point includes wage and salary income, commissions, overtime, tips, bonuses, self-employment net income, rental income, dividends, interest, retirement distributions, capital gains, severance, unemployment benefits, disability and workers’ compensation benefits, gifts and prizes of recurring value, spousal maintenance, and alimony. Imputed income applies when an obligor is intentionally underemployed or unemployed.
Net resources are not gross. The statute permits five deductions: federal income tax (calculated as if the obligor filed single, even when the obligor will actually file jointly with a new spouse), Social Security taxes, state income tax (none in Texas), union dues, and the cost of the children’s health and dental insurance premiums. Notably absent from the list: the obligor’s own health insurance premium, retirement contributions, and any payments to a new spouse or new children. Those expenses do not reduce net resources for child-support purposes, even when they are real.
Guideline support is a floor, not a ceiling.
The number the formula produces is the minimum the state expects from the obligor — not the maximum a court can order, and not the maximum parents can agree to. Texas Family Code § 154.122 makes the guideline a rebuttable presumption: a starting point that fires in every case, presumed to be in the child’s best interest, unless the record shows a reason it should not be. Parents who want to set support higher — because the child has unusual needs, because the obligor has resources well beyond the formula’s reach, or because the parents simply choose to invest more in the child’s stability — can do that with an agreement and the court will routinely sign it.
Going lower is the harder move. Below-guideline agreements require the court to make a best-interest finding under § 154.123, and the order has to recite the reasons for the variance. That asymmetry is intentional. The legislature picked percentages that produce a number a child should never receive less than without an affirmative reason on the record. Negotiation pressure runs in one direction: up from the floor, not down through it.
The $11,700 cap and what happens above it.
Section 154.130 caps guideline support at the first $11,700 in net monthly resources. The cap was $9,200 from September 2019 through August 31, 2025. Effective September 1, 2025, the Office of the Attorney General raised the cap to $11,700 under the six-year inflation-indexing mechanism in § 154.125(a-1). Orders entered before September 1, 2025 do not automatically adjust. The cap only matters going forward, on new orders and modifications.
Above the cap, the formula stops. The obligor pays guideline support on the first $11,700 of net (so $2,340 per month for one child, $2,925 for two, and so on), and any additional support has to be justified by a two-part showing: the child has a historical need above what guideline covers AND the obligor has the resources to meet it. A high-earning obligor does not pay 20% of a million-dollar income simply because the math says so. The party asking for above-cap support bears the burden of proof on both prongs, and the case becomes a budget exercise rather than a percentage exercise.
Healthcare and dental coverage are not optional.
Texas treats medical and dental coverage as two separate, separately ordered obligations. Medical support is governed by Texas Family Code § 154.181 and § 154.182; dental support is governed by the separate provisions in § 154.1815 and § 154.1825. Every child-support order must address health insurance and, separately, dental insurance for the children. The court is required to order both. The only question is which parent provides each. Section 154.182 prioritizes the obligor for medical coverage when the obligor has reasonable-cost coverage available through employment, with the parallel dental rule in § 154.1825 working the same way. If the obligor does not have access, the obligee can be ordered to provide coverage instead, with the obligor reimbursing the cost. If neither has access to reasonable-cost private coverage, the order routes the child onto Medicaid or CHIP and the obligor pays cash medical support.
The cost of the coverage the parents are ordered to provide is what comes out of net resources in the child-support calculation. Health insurance and dental insurance are separate line items, both required, both subtracted from gross. Out-of-pocket medical expenses (deductibles, copays, uncovered treatments) are typically split, with the standard split being 50/50 unless the order says otherwise.
When the guideline is overridden.
The guideline percentages are presumptive, not mandatory. Section 154.123 lets the court deviate when applying the guideline would not be in the child’s best interest. The statute lists seventeen factors a judge can consider, including the age and needs of the child, the ability of the parents to contribute to support, financial resources available for support, the amount of possession and access, special or extraordinary educational, healthcare, or other expenses of the parents or the child, and the cost of travel between the parents’ residences when they live far apart.
Two patterns produce most deviations in practice. Above the cap, the court sets support based on proven needs rather than the percentage. Below the guideline, parents who reach an agreement (often in collaborative or negotiated cases) set a number that reflects unusual sharing arrangements, larger possession allocations, or one parent absorbing significant ancillary expenses like private school or specialized therapies. Either way, the order has to state on the record what the guideline amount would have been and why the court chose a different figure.
Modification: when the court will recalculate.
Texas Family Code § 156.401 permits modification of child support on either of two grounds. The first is a material and substantial change in the circumstances of the child, a parent, or any party affected by the order, since the prior order was signed. The second is a three-year-plus passage of time during which the current order differs from a guideline calculation by either 20% or $100. Either ground is enough. A parent does not have to show both.
Material and substantial changes that typically clear the bar: a meaningful income change in either direction, a job loss, a child’s medical or educational needs that have shifted significantly, a relocation that changes possession allocation, the addition or emancipation of another child, or a parent’s incarceration. What does not clear the bar: an obligor’s voluntary income reduction, a strategic resignation timed to a hearing, or ordinary year-over-year fluctuations in self-employment income. The party seeking modification carries the burden of proving the change.
Enforcement: when child support is not paid.
Texas takes child-support enforcement seriously. Two tracks run in parallel. The Office of the Attorney General Child Support Division handles administrative enforcement at no cost to the receiving parent: wage withholding, federal and state tax refund interception, driver’s license and professional license suspension, passport denial, lottery and casino winnings interception, and property liens. The OAG track works for routine arrearage collection and is the right path for most enforcement situations.
The private enforcement track runs through your attorney filing a motion to enforce in the original court. It can produce a contempt finding (with conditional jail time and a purge amount), a money judgment that accrues 3% statutory interest under § 157.265 (reduced from 6% on January 1, 2026), attorney-fees recovery under § 157.167, and remedies the OAG cannot provide. Private enforcement is the right move when the case involves a defiant non-payor, large arrearages, complex compensation structures the OAG cannot easily reach, or related issues like contempt on possession orders that the OAG does not enforce.