Call Us Today! 760-320-7915
Top
Family Code section 4055 - "Mechanics of Statewide Child Support Formula"

CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE

Statewide Uniform Guideline

Family Code Section 4055

(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).

#### Testimonials & Endorsements

• “Not only is Mr. Peterson’s knowledge of the law beyond measure, he’s able to articulate it so it’s understandable.”
If you are going through a divorce, The Law Offices of Arnold, Peterson & Criste is in my opinion the best option available. Mr. Peterson and his assistant Jordyn are top notch. Not only is Mr. Peterson’s knowledge of the law beyond measure, he’s able to articulate it so it’s understandable. He was able to navigate my emotions and help my uphill battle to receive proper visitation as a father. Jordyn never hesitated to reach out within the same business day if documents were needed or for any question I had about the process. Thanks to the team, we resolved the divorce healthfully. I couldn’t be more grateful.
- Josh Arguijo
• “I needed the best analysis and advice possible. I found Attorney Thurman Arnold III in Palm Springs.”
I am a Veteran and Retired Deputy Sheriff. My divorce involved complicated property distribution and spousal support issues. I spent considerable time looking for the best Counsel I could find before I negotiated with my ex-wife and her Attorney. In fact, my case was in another county, but that didn't matter. I needed the best analysis and advice possible. I found Attorney Thurman Arnold III in Palm Springs. Attorney Arnold is a BAR Certified Family Law Specialist. In my humble opinion the best! His review of my case and how "Moore Marsden" property division applied was invaluable. His guidance saved me \$30,000 dollars. Thank you, Thurman!
- Jeff Jones
• “Mike is adept at managing expectations and being very fair and measured.”
Needed to modify a settlement and hired Mike Peterson. Mike is very, very knowledgeable and experienced. When you are going through a divorce or child custody issues, it is the most terrifying and stressful experience. Mike is adept at managing expectations and being very fair and measured. I wish I had hired him initially to get it all done straight the first time around. He is very responsive and communicative and understands the client well. Good luck going through this process - have a good guide like Mike without a doubt.
- Donika McKelvie
• “I would highly recommend him and the firm”
Micheal Peterson is very knowledgeable of law and can help you make the best decisions for your family. He does is job with integrity. He helps with giving discounts when he can . I would highly recommend him and the firm . Very good staff .
- Vincent Hall
• “Very professional, honest, and handled everything without a hiccup.”
Arnold, Peterson & Criste are a class act. Very professional, honest, and handled everything without a hiccup. When a year had passed, he and Jordyn contacted me to let me know I still had retainer on the books! I had forgot and they sent me the money anyway! For this I am very grateful and cannot recommend them enough. You won’t go wrong with Thurman Arnold. He is definitely the guy to have on your side.
- Matt Feenstra
• “Simply the Best of the Best!!!”
I Highly Recommend Michael C. Peterson at the Law Office of Thurman W. Arnold!!! I hired Michael for my custody case and he is very knowledgeable and took the time to educate me on the process so we can put together a winning strategy. He fought for me and my children in court and successfully won our case. There are no words to describe how grateful and appreciative I am for Michaels service!!! If you are sitting on the fence on which Attorney to hire, do yourself a favor and hire Michael. I would not recommend anyone else!!! Simply the Best of the Best!!!
- John and Lukes Tube
• “Mike amazes me by his knowledge of my case, made me feel like I was his only client.”

I reached out to this law firm 2 years ago when my life was falling apart. My case was assigned to attorney Michael Peterson. I didn't know much about him except few reviews on google but I'm glad I hit the jackpot. Mike amazes me by his knowledge of my case, made me feel like I was his only client. He's very responsive, respectful and and goes above and…

- Damaris M.
• “He and Michael Peterson are truly masters of their craft.”
When my clients have family law issues, I routinely refer them to Thurman Arnold. He and Michael Peterson are truly masters of their craft. Family law can be an unwieldy beast, but they handle it with precision and finesse.
- Edward Cross