Handling special situations when calculating child support
Nevada courts are required to adhere to the Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”) when calculating child support. The Nevada Supreme Court stated in a recent opinion that the method used in calculating child support must follow the step-by-step process outlined in the adopted Guidelines. Unfortunately, not all cases fit neatly within that process. So the Guidelines address them in a very general way in NAC 425.115(4) . But for the most part, we follow the Court’s process.
There are two situations that cause regular problems for the courts when calculating child support:
(1) “Split Custody” arrangements where one parent has primary physical custody of one or more children while the parties simultaneously share joint physical custody of one or more other children; and
(2) “Multiple Parent” situations where a parent is responsible for paying child support to multiple co-parents.
Split Custody Arrangements
The way to calculate child support for Split Custody Arrangements is to start with the calculation as set forth in the Guidelines. Starting with each parent’s Gross Monthly Income (“GMI”), the parent’s financial “obligation” to their child is calculated based upon the number of children from the relationship. (For a detailed, step-by-step explanation of how Child Support is usually calculated, click HERE) Once the obligations are established, the total obligation is divided by the number of children to arrive at a “per-child” figure. Then the per-child figure is applied to their specific custody situation to arrive at the appropriate support amount.
For example, if Dad’s GMI is $5,000 and Mom’s GMI is $4,000, and the parties have two children, one in Mom’s primary care, and the other shared jointly, the calculation works like this:
Looking at the Guidelines, the percentages to be used on the three tiers (the first $6,000, the next $4,000, and everything over $10,000) for two children is 22% / 11% / 6%. Here, neither parent makes more than $6,000, so only the first tier is used.
Step One: Calculate each parent’s obligation:
Dad’s obligation is $1,100 ($5,000 x 22% (or 0.22) = $1,100.
Mom’s obligation is $880 ($4,000 x 22% (or 0.22) = $880.
Step Two: Divide each by two to arrive at the “per child” figure:
Dad’s per-child obligation is $550 ($1,100 ÷ 2 = $550)
Mom’s per-child obligation is $440 ($880 ÷ 2 = $440)
Step Three: Apply the figures to the arrangement for each child:
Child 1: Mom has primary physical custody, so only Dad’s obligation is considered:
Dad pays mom $550 per month for Child 1.
Child 2: Mom and Dad have joint physical custody, so the obligations are offset:
Mom’s obligation of $440 is subtracted from Dad’s obligation of $550 = $110;
Dad pays Mom $110 per month for Child 2.
Thus, in this example, Dad will pay $660 in child support to Mom each month.
An Explanation:
Though uncommon, Split Custody arrangements are frequent enough that the Nevada Supreme Court had to determine how to deal with them. In the case of Miller v. Miller,[1] the Court decided to try to hold to the framework of the Guidelines as written, then to reduce the calculated award into a “per child” number, that would then be adjusted to fit the particular arrangement. This makes some sense when considering how the support calculations were set up in the first place.
The Child Support Guidelines are the State’s estimate of what it costs to raise a child in Nevada.[2] In 2017, then-Assemblyman Keith Pickard proposed and passed legislation that created the “Committee to Review Child Support Guidelines,” commonly called the Child Support Guidelines Committee. The Committee arrived at a system of calculating support based upon the generally accepted understanding that the cost of raising multiple children is not as simple as multiplying a base cost by the number of children. In fact, much of the cost of raising children is fixed: rent or mortgage payments, car payments and maintenance, etc. Though its’ true that two children will require more food and laundering than one, it is not going to be a full doubling of those costs. It costs less “per child” to raise two than one. Thus, the tiered calculation of support is not linear – it is not as simple as adding the cost of one child for each, rather, it’s an estimate of the savings gained as the family increases in size. The Committee could not agree on how to handle Split Custody arrangements, so the procedure established in the Miller decision is still the way we do it.
Multiple Parents – Multiple Awards
Unlike Split Custody Arrangements, neither the Nevada Legislature nor the Nevada Supreme Court have provided guidance in dealing with Multiple Parent situations. That’s mostly because it is the job of the Legislature to make the policy decisions and the courts to enforce them, but until that happens the courts don’t have much guidance.[3] Indeed, the cases are always fact-specific and a universal approach often does not fit. But there are some rules of thumb that most courts follow.
In most cases, courts reduce a child support award when a parent has obligations for other children not part of case the judge is deciding. Some judges will prioritize the first-born child over subsequent children under the thinking that the parent knew of the obligation to the first child when they conceived the second (or third…), so the first obligation will not be reduced but subsequent obligations might. This is not a universal rule, however.
Though the new guidelines don’t address this situation directly, there is some guidance given to the courts in the form of factors to consider when deviating from the Guidelines. Those factors are found in NAC 425.150 and include in part:
(b) The legal responsibility of the parties for the support of others;
(d) Any public assistance paid to support the child;
(f) The relative income of both households, so long as the adjustment does not exceed the total obligation of the other party;
(g) Any other necessary expenses for the benefit of the child; and
(h) The obligor’s ability to pay.
Because the court must write specific findings explaining how these factors can apply, often starting with factor (b) and ending with factor (h), the court can and should look at the financial situation of the obligor parent to determine what is proper under the circumstances. But because there is no formula or other guidance given in statute, it’s up to the judge to make sure the reasoning is clear and supported by evidence. In other words, it’s up to the judge.
If you find yourself in either of these situations, the best thing you could do is to meet with an experienced child support attorney. Those of us that regularly practice in this area can get the details and help you through the process. And because there is little guidance beyond what is discussed here, this area is ripe for mistakes on the parts of attorneys and judges alike. Give us a call. We’re happy to help.
[1] 134 Nev. Ad. Op. 16 (March 15, 2018).
[2] Of course, Nevada is a diverse place with significantly different costs and challenges depending upon where you live. Because the state must have a uniform law that applies to everyone, we used an approach based upon the Federal Poverty Level and economists’ estimates of what the average person in Nevada needs to survive and raise children. There will always be some differing opinions and circumstances that would justify a higher or lower amount. Fortunately, there is some flexibility built into the Guidelines to allow a judge to make a deviation if a parent convinces them it’s appropriate. For more detail on how the numbers were established, visit the website of the Child Support Guideline Committee to see the agendas and recordings of the meetings, available at https://dwss.nv.gov/Support/cs_guideline_committee/.
[3] There are two primary cases on this issue: Hoover v. Hoover, 106 Nev. 388, 389, 793 P.2d 1329, 1330 (1990), and Lewis v. Hicks, 108 Nev. 1107, 1115, 843 P.2d 828, 834 (1992). In both cases the Nevada Supreme Court refused to make up a rule stating that’s the job of the Legislature, but also pointed to the deviation factors in the Guidelines as a way for the district court to find the best solution under the circumstances.
