Child support is set by a formula, and the formula belongs to a state. This calculator applies one state’s published table to your own figures and prints the arithmetic line by line, so the answer can be checked rather than believed. This page currently covers 14 states; data for the other states cannot yet be verified through official sources, so they are not listed here. This page relies strictly on officially published information - it does not guess or fabricate, so every figure on it has a source that can be checked.
Child Support Calculator - Danfio
https://danfio.com/tools/child-support-calculator/ - printed from this page
Currency: USD ($) - display only, nothing was converted
Texas guideline for 1 child
$600.00 a month
20% of $3,000 of monthly net resources, under Texas Family Code Sec. 154.125. Texas treats this as the presumptive amount - the figure an order starts from, not the order itself.
Share applied
20%
A year
$7,200.00
Net resources used
$3,000
Other children
0 No credit
The arithmetic, line by line
Step
Value
Monthly net resources
$3,000
Base for the guideline ($11,700 cap)
$3,000
Share for 1 child
20%
Monthly support
$600.00
A year
$7,200.00
Every figure here comes from the fields above and the published table. Nothing is rounded on the way except the share (four decimals, as the state’s own script does it) and the money (to the cent).
Texas’s published percentages
Children in the order
Share of monthly net resources
Low income
1
20%
15%
2
25%
20%
3
30%
25%
4
35%
30%
5 or more
40%
35%
Texas Family Code Sec. 154.125, as the state’s own calculator applies it. The last row is the table’s last row: Texas stops at five children, so six are computed at the same share as five. The second column is the table for monthly net resources under $1,000, in force for actions filed on or after September 2021.
Net resources are not gross pay. Texas starts from income and subtracts federal income tax, Social Security and Medicare, state income tax, union dues, and medical or dental support the paying parent provides for other children. The Attorney General’s own calculator does that part from a wage, on the same page the percentages here were read from.
This is arithmetic on a published table, not legal advice and not an order. A court may deviate from the guideline amount, and an order usually settles things this number leaves out entirely: who carries health and dental insurance, who claims the child, travel between two homes, childcare, and whatever the parents agree. Nothing you type is transmitted anywhere.
Percentages, the low-income table and the $11,700 cap: Office of the Attorney General of Texas, “Monthly Child Support Calculator”, https://csapps.oag.texas.gov/monthly-child-support-calculator. It was read from a snapshot committed in sources/ (tx-oag-calculator.html, 38399 bytes, SHA-256 b6fd812429e20693…), fetched 2026-11-03T08:03:58.410Z by local (win32, node 24.19.0). The order the steps are applied in - cap, then the low-income table, then the credit for children outside the order - follows that agency’s own script, snapshotted beside it as tx-oag-calc-js.html. The rule is Texas Family Code Sec. 154.125. For a state that is not modelled here, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement lists every state agency: https://acf.gov/ocse/data/map/state-and-tribal-child-support-agency-contacts.
The table this figure was read from
The table in force
The standard table - the shares the state publishes for each number of children
Children counted
1 1 in this order, 0 outside it
The share the table prints for this order
20%
What this page covers, and what it leaves out
Covered: the state’s own published table, and the arithmetic from your income to the monthly guideline figure, step by step.
Covered: the costs a state’s own worksheet adds before the division - on the states that print those two lines, they are fields on this page.
Not covered: a deviation. A court may order more or less than the guideline on the evidence, and that decision is not arithmetic this page can do.
Not covered: who carries health and dental cover, who claims the child, travel between two homes, or childcare - unless the state’s own worksheet has a line for it.
Not covered: an order for a number of children the state’s table prints no column for. The page says so where that happens instead of multiplying a column the state never printed.
It ships with the fourteen states whose guideline numbers have been read from an official source and kept on record. Today that is Texas (one flat share of monthly net resources, with a low-income table and a cap), Nevada (a schedule of brackets over monthly gross income, in force since February 2020), Virginia (a 844-row schedule of dollar amounts against the combined monthly gross income of both parents, divided between them in proportion to their incomes - with the Commonwealth’s own worksheet supplying the smaller rules: money rounded to the nearest dollar, the four conversions from a pay stub to a month, and the two cost lines its subsections E and F add before that division), Georgia (a 785-row table of dollar amounts against the combined monthly adjusted gross income of both parents, taking the nearest table row rather than interpolating), Pennsylvania (a 574-row schedule of dollar amounts against the combined monthly net income of both parents, applied in the proportion of each parent’s share of that combined income), Ohio (a piecewise formula of percentages over combined annual income, per § 3119.021) and Mississippi (a flat percentage of the non-custodial parent’s monthly adjusted gross income, set out in Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101 - 14 percent for one child, 20 for two, 22 for three, 24 for four and 26 for five or more - with no dollar cap, only a court finding required when annual income is over $100,000 or under $10,000), and Alabama (a 596-row schedule of dollar amounts against the combined monthly adjusted gross income of both parents, from 0-250 up to $30,000 in $50 steps, taking the nearer row and, on an exact midpoint, the higher one, with the presumptive amount staying on the top row above $30,000 because Rule 32 leaves a higher income to a court’s discretion), Washington (a 479-row economic table under RCW 26.19.020 where each cell is the amount per child, so a family’s obligation is that figure times the children in the order, with the two ends answered by a sentence rather than a row), Minnesota (a banded 188-row schedule of dollar amounts against the combined monthly parental income for determining child support, where each income is assigned to its own $100 band and that band’s fixed cell is used wholesale - no interpolation and no nearest row - with subdivision 4(e) holding the presumptive amount at the $20,000 row above that line), and Michigan (a **monthly** General Care equation, per 2025 MCSF §3.02(B), over the combined monthly net family income - each income level prints a Base Support amount in dollars and a Marginal Percentage, applied as G = A + B×(C−D), with the low-income end and the parenting-time offset named rather than computed), and Missouri (Form No. 14 - a twelve-line **worksheet** rather than a table, Order 3093: line 5 looks the combined income up in the 775-row schedule of basic obligations, line 11 takes off one of eighteen overnight bands and is withheld unless the receiving parent clears the self-support reserve, line 5 runs lines 8-12 a second time on the paying parent’s own row and takes the lower figure, and line 6a is the one figure the form changes before it enters the arithmetic, through the Child Care Tax Credit) The tables below name exactly which page every figure came from. North Carolina is not here yet - its official source is not readable from the network we fetch on - and a state with no table gets a sentence instead of a guess.
New Jersey is one of the fourteen states here: a 343-row dollar schedule over the parents’ combined **weekly net income** (Appendix IX-F, effective 2025-09-01) - one row for every $10 from $180 to $3,600, read at the nearest printed row with a halfway point taken up, and with both ends answered by a sentence rather than a figure. Because the base is weekly, the figures you enter here and the obligation printed are weekly amounts. Michigan sits in a **monthly** frame rather than Ohio’s annual one: the General Care Support Tables of the 2025 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual (§3.02(B)) are drawn over the combined monthly net family income, one table per number of children (one through five-or-more), each row printing an income level, a Base Support in dollars and a Marginal Percentage, applied as G = A + B×(C−D). The low-income threshold and the Low Income and Transition equations (§2.01, §3.02(C)/(D)) and the parenting-time offset (§3.03) are named, not computed - computing the offset needs an overnights count this page does not collect, and any parenting-time deviation is left to the court’s discretion. New York, the thirteenth state here, is the one that turns the frame inside out: the Child Support Standards Chart (LDSS 4515, Rev. 03/26, released 03/01/2026) applies a percentage of the **noncustodial parent’s own annual income** - 17 percent for one child, 25 for two, 29 for three, 31 for four and no less than 35 for five or more - so nothing is divided a second time, and the panel says why that is the same number as the statute’s combined-income product below $193,000 of combined parental income. Under the percentage the worksheet prints three branches: the figure stands where what is left after it is at least the $21,546 self-support reserve; between that reserve and the $15,960 poverty guideline the entry is the greater of $600 or the income above the reserve; and below the poverty guideline it is $300. This page applies those branches rather than transcribing the chart’s own ~2,000 printed cells, because page 1 says the intervals “are based upon the lower bound of the interval” and tells a reader who wants a precise figure to “use the percentages listed below to perform the calculation on the worksheet located on page 22” - and the test regenerates the printed cells from those percentages, band by band, so the two cannot drift apart. Above $193,000 of combined parental income the chart’s own note makes the percentages a permission rather than a rule, so the figure stops at that line and the page says how much sits above it.
About this child support calculator
Child support belongs to a state, so the honest version of this page is a small set of states read out of official sources rather than fifty states estimated from memory. Texas, Nevada, Virginia, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Mississippi, Alabama, Washington, Minnesota, New Jersey, Michigan, New York and Missouri are here because their rules could be read from a published table, a stated formula or a state’s own worksheet, verified against the official text and checked line for line against the official table.
Every figure the calculator prints comes from that official text, including all 574 rows of the Pennsylvania schedule and all six children families of Ohio’s percentages, and a state that has not been through that process is refused by name with a link to the federal agency directory rather than answered with a plausible guess. North Carolina is not here yet - its official source is not readable from the network we fetch from. An estimate, not a return, and not tax advice.
How this child support calculator works
Why the state comes first
Fifty states mean fifty different rules, and they do not even share a shape: Texas multiplies one flat percentage of net resources; Nevada splits gross income into brackets and adds a percentage of each; others use a shared-income schedule with a table per income band. None of those numbers may be typed from memory here. Each state is added only after its rule has been read out of an official page, that page has been verified and kept on record, and every number is checked line for line against the official table. Mississippi is the same flat shape as Texas but without either of the two lines Texas draws: it has no dollar cap and no low-income table - the whole monthly adjusted gross income is the base - and its only edge is a court finding, not an amount (the sources panel below says which that is).
That is slower than copying a table from a search result, and it is the point: a wrong percentage produces an answer that looks exactly like a right one, and the person reading it may be deciding whether to contest an order. A state that is not in the table is refused by name, with a pointer to the federal directory of state child support agencies.
It is also why fourteen states are not one template with fourteen columns. When Nevada arrived, the arithmetic grew a second shape - a sum over brackets - rather than pretending a flat table could hold a schedule whose share falls as income rises. When Virginia arrived it needed a third: its subsection B prints dollar amounts against the **combined** income of two parents and its own subdivision G 1 then divides the result in proportion to their incomes, so the tool gained a second income field and its answer became a share rather than a total. Georgia added a fourth: its 785-row schedule returns the nearest table row rather than the figure between two rows, so the answer stays inside the printed table instead of being extrapolated across its rows. Pennsylvania dropped into that third shape: like Virginia it is a combined-income schedule, but it sits on net income, takes the nearest printed row, and past its top row it hands the case to the high-income rule of 1910.16-3.1 rather than adding a percentage. Ohio fitted none of them - its section prints percentages over shared income ranges rather than a printed dollar table - so it grew a fifth shape, a piecewise formula the page applies exactly as the section writes it, and Michigan fits that piecewise shape too, on a monthly frame: its General Care tables print a Base Support in dollars and apply G = A + B×(C−D) over the combined monthly net family income, a frame Ohio’s annual figure has no need of. Alabama fits that nearest-row shape too, but with a tie-breaker of its own: where an income falls exactly halfway between two printed rows, Rule 32 uses the higher value, where Georgia uses the lower. Washington drops into that nearest-row shape too, but on a per-child schedule: the family’s obligation is the figure times the children in the order, and the two ends are answered in words rather than a row. Minnesota grew the sixth shape - the banded bracket - where each income is pinned to its own $100 band and that band’s fixed cell is used wholesale, with no interpolation and no nearest row.
What each state’s table multiplies
Texas works from monthly net resources: income after federal income tax, Social Security and Medicare, state income tax, union dues, and any medical or dental support the paying parent provides for other children. Its share is one percentage chosen by the number of children in the order, and it stays the same however large the income grows until it reaches the cap.
Nevada works from monthly gross income, before deductions, and its share falls as income rises: NAC 425.140 charges 16 percent of the first $6,000, 8 percent of the next $4,000 and 4 percent above that for one child, and more children raise each of those brackets rather than replacing them. Someone earning $12,000 a month in Nevada is not charged 16 percent of it.
Virginia works from the **combined** monthly gross income of both parents, and its table prints money rather than a rate: subsection B of Code of Virginia § 20-108.2 is 844 rows, one per $50 of combined income, each carrying a basic obligation for one child through six. Neither parent owes that row - subdivision G 1 divides it in proportion to their two incomes - so the second income field and the share in the arithmetic table are the state’s own step, not a refinement of ours.
This page therefore asks for the figure the selected state’s own table uses and names which one that is, along with the rule it comes from. Texas and Nevada each need one income; Virginia needs both parents’. If you only know your Texas gross pay, the Attorney General’s own calculator takes a wage, applies the deductions Texas allows and ends at the same figure - the link is in the sources below.
One more field asks how you are paid, because a pay stub rarely shows a month: the four conversions in it (weekly ×4.33, bi-weekly ×2.167, semi-monthly ×2, annual ÷12) are the ones printed on Virginia’s worksheet, and they are calendar arithmetic rather than a rule of anybody’s guideline - 52 weeks, 26 fortnightly pays and 24 semi-monthly ones to twelve months - so they are offered whichever state you select. With “Monthly” chosen nothing is converted, and when one is, the arithmetic panel shows the multiplication as its own line so the monthly figure can be checked against the stub.
The caps, the low-income tables, the top band, and other children
Texas publishes two tables. The standard one runs from 20 percent of net resources for one child to 40 percent for five or more. Under $1,000 of monthly net resources the lower table applies instead - 15 percent for one child, five points below the standard share - and that is the table in force for actions filed on or after 1 September 2021. The guidelines are designed for net resources of not more than $11,700 a month, so this page stops there and says how much of your income sits above it.
Nevada has neither of those lines. Its top bracket is the answer for high incomes, so there is nothing to cap; and its low-income end is a separate schedule that NAC 425.145 hands to the Administrative Office of the Courts, which republishes it every year from the federal poverty guidelines. This page names that schedule rather than printing a number for it.
Children you support outside this order are handled differently in the two states. Texas gives a mechanical credit: the share for all the children, divided by all of them, multiplied by the number outside the order, subtracted from one, then applied to the share for the children in the order. Nevada’s schedule counts only the children in the order, and its own regulation puts other dependents among the factors a court adjusts for - so that field changes the answer in Texas and not in Nevada, and the panel says which of the two happened.
Virginia has neither a cap nor a low-income table, and it answers that field a third way. Above $42,500 of combined income the section does not stop: it adds 2.6 to 5.0 percent - more with each child - of the income above that line, which is why the answer there keeps rising rather than being left to a court. Children a parent supports outside this order are handled through income instead of a credit: subsection C presumes a deduction from that parent’s gross income for what is actually paid under an existing order, or for what this same schedule prints on that parent’s income alone. The field therefore changes nothing in the figure, and the panel says so.
Virginia is also the state where the schedule is not the whole obligation, and where the Commonwealth’s own worksheet is therefore part of the arithmetic. Subsections E and F add health care coverage and work-related child-care costs to the schedule’s figure before subdivision G 1 divides it, and those two costs are the one thing this page cannot look up: they are blank lines on the worksheet, filled in by the family. So they are two fields here, with the rules that govern them applied rather than described - coverage counts when it is available at a cost of not more than 5 percent of the paying parent’s gross income (the worksheet’s own definition of “a reasonable cost”, and it includes vision and dental cover), and child care is “actual cost or the amount required to provide quality child care, whichever is less”. Enter them and they join the figure before the split; leave them empty and what you see is the schedule’s own row, which is a floor rather than an order.
What the table leaves to the court
Each state computes a base figure and then hands a list of adjustments to a court or an agency: who carries health and dental cover, work-related child care, travel between two homes, arrears, a parent outside the order, split or shared custody. The parts a state worksheet adds are in the arithmetic here; the rest are named and left alone rather than guessed.
A published table is therefore a floor and a starting point rather than an order, and the figure this page prints is where a negotiation begins rather than where it ends. An estimate, not a return, and not tax advice.
Worked examples
Each example below was run through the calculator on this page when the site was built, so the numbers match what you see when you enter the same inputs.
$3,000 of net resources, one child in Texas
State: Texas · Income the table applies: $3,000.00 · Children in this order: 1 · Other children you support: 0
Texas guideline for 1 child
$600.00 a month
20% of $3,000 of monthly net resources, under Texas Family Code Sec. 154.125. Texas treats this as the presumptive amount - the figure an order starts from, not the order itself.
Share applied: 20% · A year: $7,200.00 · Net resources used: $3,000 · Other children: 0
The whole calculation is 20 percent of $3,000: $600 a month, $7,200 a year.
$20,000 of net resources, three children in Texas
State: Texas · Income the table applies: $20,000.00 · Children in this order: 3 · Other children you support: 0
Texas guideline for 3 children
$3,510.00 a month
30% of $11,700 of monthly net resources, under Texas Family Code Sec. 154.125. Texas treats this as the presumptive amount - the figure an order starts from, not the order itself.
Share applied: 30% · A year: $42,120.00 · Net resources used: $11,700 · Other children: 0
The base stops at the $11,700 cap, so the guideline gives $3,510 a month, and $8,300 of the income is above the line the guidelines cover.
$900 of net resources, one child in Texas
State: Texas · Income the table applies: $900.00 · Children in this order: 1 · Other children you support: 0
Texas guideline for 1 child
$135.00 a month
15% of $900 of monthly net resources, under Texas Family Code Sec. 154.125. Texas treats this as the presumptive amount - the figure an order starts from, not the order itself.
Share applied: 15% · A year: $1,620.00 · Net resources used: $900 · Other children: 0
Below $1,000 the low-income table applies: 15 percent instead of 20 percent, so $135 a month rather than $180.
$12,000 of gross income, one child in Nevada
State: Nevada · Income the table applies: $12,000.00 · Children in this order: 1 · Other children you support: 0
Nevada guideline for 1 child
$1,360.00 a month
11.33% of $12,000 of monthly gross income, under NAC 425.140. That is the effective share, not the headline one: a graduated schedule charges its first-bracket percentage only on the first bracket and less on the income above it, and an order starts from this figure rather than from a single rate.
Share applied: 11.33% · A year: $16,320.00 · Gross income used: $12,000 · Other children: 0
Three brackets add up: 16 percent of the first $6,000 ($960), 8 percent of the next $4,000 ($320) and 4 percent of the last $2,000 ($80) - $1,360 a month, an effective share of 11.33 percent rather than 16.
$3,000 of gross income, two children in Nevada
State: Nevada · Income the table applies: $3,000.00 · Children in this order: 2 · Other children you support: 0
Nevada guideline for 2 children
$660.00 a month
22% of $3,000 of monthly gross income, under NAC 425.140. That is the effective share, not the headline one: a graduated schedule charges its first-bracket percentage only on the first bracket and less on the income above it, and an order starts from this figure rather than from a single rate.
Share applied: 22% · A year: $7,920.00 · Gross income used: $3,000 · Other children: 0
The whole figure sits in the first bracket, so the schedule is 22 percent of $3,000: $660 a month. The same entered figure in Texas gives $750, because Texas multiplies net resources and Nevada gross income.
$3,000 each, one child in Virginia
State: Virginia · Income the table applies: $3,000.00 · The other parent’s income: $3,000.00 · Children in this order: 1 · Other children you support: 0
Virginia guideline for 1 child
$500 a month
The schedule prints $999 for 1 child, on $6,000 of combined monthly gross income, and subdivision G 1 puts 50% of it on the parent whose income is in the first field, that being that parent’s share of the two incomes. Health care coverage and work-related child care are added to that figure before the division, and the two fields above are where they go: entered, they are in the answer; left empty, the answer is the schedule’s own row - the floor an order that includes them starts above.
Income share: 50% · A year: $6,000 · Combined income used: $6,000 · Other children: 0
Both incomes go in: $6,000 of combined income is the row that carries $999 for one child, and subdivision G 1 puts half of it on each parent - $500 a month, because the Commonwealth’s worksheet rounds to the nearest dollar with $.50 rounding up. Enter health care coverage and work-related child care and they are added to the $999 before that division.
$30,000 and $20,000, one child in Virginia
State: Virginia · Income the table applies: $30,000.00 · The other parent’s income: $20,000.00 · Children in this order: 1 · Other children you support: 0
Virginia guideline for 1 child
$2,101 a month
The schedule stops at $42,500 and the rule adds 2.6% of the income above it, which gives $3,501, on $50,000 of combined monthly gross income, and subdivision G 1 puts 60% of it on the parent whose income is in the first field, that being that parent’s share of the two incomes. Health care coverage and work-related child care are added to that figure before the division, and the two fields above are where they go: entered, they are in the answer; left empty, the answer is the schedule’s own row - the floor an order that includes them starts above.
Income share: 60% · A year: $25,212 · Combined income used: $50,000 · Other children: 0
The schedule stops at $42,500, where one child carries $3,306. The section does not stop there: it adds 2.6 percent of the $7,500 above that line ($195), giving $3,501 for both parents together, and the parent with $30,000 of the $50,000 pays 60 percent of it - $2,101 a month.
$120 of health cover and $200 of child care, with the two incomes above
State: Virginia · Income the table applies: $3,000.00 · The other parent’s income: $3,000.00 · Children in this order: 1 · Other children you support: 0 · Health care coverage for these children: $120.00 · Work-related child care: $200.00
Virginia guideline for 1 child
$660 a month
The schedule prints $999 for 1 child, on $6,000 of combined monthly gross income, and subdivision G 1 puts 50% of it on the parent whose income is in the first field, that being that parent’s share of the two incomes. The two costs the worksheet adds before that division are in the answer: health care coverage of $120 and work-related child care of $200, which is what makes $1,319 before the split rather than the schedule’s own $999.
Income share: 50% · A year: $7,920 · Combined income used: $6,000 · Other children: 0
The worksheet’s line 8 is the schedule’s $999 plus $120 plus $200 = $1,319, and the parent with half the income owes half of that: $660 a month. Enter $200 of health cover instead and nothing is added - the worksheet counts coverage only when it costs no more than 5 percent of that parent’s $3,000, which is $150.
A $693 weekly pay stub, one child in Virginia
State: Virginia · Pay period of the income figures: Weekly · Income the table applies: $693.00 · Children in this order: 1 · Other children you support: 0
Virginia guideline for 1 child
$554 a month
Subsection B’s own rule for income between two printed rows - they “shall be extrapolated” - gives $554, on $3,001 of combined monthly gross income, and subdivision G 1 divides it between the parents in proportion to their incomes - with no second income entered, the whole of it falls on the income in the first field. Health care coverage and work-related child care are added to that figure before the division, and the two fields above are where they go: entered, they are in the answer; left empty, the answer is the schedule’s own row - the floor an order that includes them starts above.
Income share: 100% · A year: $6,648 · Combined income used: $3,001 · Other children: 0
The worksheet’s own conversion turns that into a month: $693 × 4.33 = $3,000.69, rounded to $3,001. The schedule has no row for $3,001, so the section’s words “shall be extrapolated” take over and it reads between the $3,000 row ($554) and the $3,050 row ($562) - $554 a month.
Frequently asked questions
Is this the amount a court will order?+
No. It is the presumptive guideline amount, the figure an order starts from. A court can deviate from it, and an order usually settles things this arithmetic never sees: who carries health and dental insurance, who claims the child for tax, travel between two homes, childcare, and any agreement the parents reach. Treat the number as the starting point of a conversation, not its conclusion.
Which states are modelled here?+
Fourteen states, each with the rule its own state publishes: Texas’s flat percentages of monthly net resources (with its low-income table and its $11,700 cap), Nevada’s schedule of brackets over monthly gross income, in force since 1 February 2020, Virginia’s 844-row schedule of dollar amounts against the combined monthly gross income of both parents, with its own top band above $42,500, the division in subdivision G 1, and the Commonwealth’s worksheet behind the smaller rules - money rounded to the nearest dollar, the four pay-period conversions, and the costs subsections E and F add, and Georgia’s 785-row schedule of dollar amounts against the combined monthly adjusted gross income of both parents, taking the nearest table row, with its top band ending at $40,000 (0% above) and the division in O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15, the Parenting Time Adjustment and the 19%–28% low-income adjustment explained, Pennsylvania’s 574-row schedule of dollar amounts against combined monthly net income, applied in each parent’s proportion of it, Ohio’s piecewise formula of percentages over combined annual income under § 3119.021, Mississippi’s flat percentage of monthly adjusted gross income under Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101 (14 to 26 percent for one through five or more children, with no dollar cap), and Alabama’s 596-row schedule of dollar amounts against combined monthly adjusted gross income (0-250, then $50 steps to $30,000, the nearer row and the higher one on an exact midpoint, with nothing added above $30,000 because Rule 32 leaves that to a court), and Minnesota’s banded 188-row schedule of dollar amounts against the combined monthly parental income for determining child support, where each income lands in its own $100 band and takes that band’s fixed cell - no interpolation and no nearest row - with the presumptive amount holding at the $20,000 row above it by subdivision 4(e), and Michigan’s monthly General Care equation (2025 MCSF §3.02(B)) over the combined monthly net family income, each income level printing a Base Support in dollars and a Marginal Percentage as G = A + B×(C−D), and New York’s five percentages over the noncustodial parent’s own annual income (LDSS 4515, Rev. 03/26), with the three low-income branches on its worksheet applied - the $21,546 self-support reserve, the greater of $600 or the income above that reserve down to the $15,960 poverty guideline, and $300 below it - and the chart’s own printed cells follow those percentages, cell by cell. Every number comes from an official page that has been read, verified against the official text and kept on record, with every figure checked against the official table - in Virginia’s case all 844 rows of the table, line for line, and in Alabama’s all 596 rows of its schedule, line for line, and the worksheet’s rounding sentence, its four multipliers and its 5 percent limit read from the PDF itself. One state is one working round, and a state that has not been through that process is refused rather than estimated, because a guessed percentage is the one failure mode that costs a reader money without looking wrong. The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement lists every state agency, and each publishes its own guidelines page.
Why does Virginia ask for a second income?+
Because that is the shape of Virginia’s rule, not a feature of this page. Its schedule is keyed by the **combined** monthly gross income of both parents, and subdivision G 1 of § 20-108.2 then divides the total between them in the same proportion as their monthly gross incomes bear to their combined income - so one income alone cannot say what either parent owes. Leave the second field at zero and the page shows the schedule’s own row with the whole of it on the income you entered; type the other parent’s income and the answer becomes the share that falls on the first field. Texas and Nevada never read that field, and the panel says so when you switch to them.
How do I work out monthly net resources?+
Start from monthly gross income and subtract what Texas allows: federal income tax, Social Security and Medicare (including the self-employed rates if that is you), state income tax, union dues, and medical or dental support you provide for children outside this order. The Attorney General’s own calculator does this from a yearly, monthly, weekly or hourly wage and shows every line of it, which is faster than doing it by hand - the link is in the sources below. Nevada and Virginia are the opposite case: there the table applies to gross income, before any of those deductions, so nothing has to be worked out first. Virginia does allow deductions - reasonable business expenses, half of any self-employment tax, spousal support paid under an order, and support paid for children outside this order - but they are deductions from **gross income as the section defines it**, not the federal-tax version of net resources.
Why does Nevada charge a lower percentage on higher income?+
Because its schedule is written that way. NAC 425.140 sets out “the sum of” three brackets: 16 percent of the first $6,000 of monthly gross income, 8 percent of the next $4,000, and 4 percent of anything above $10,000 for one child, with each additional child raising each bracket. It replaced the flat percentages that applied before 1 February 2020, and the effect is that the share of total income falls as income rises - which is also why this page reports the effective share (the money divided by the income) instead of one headline rate.
Is there a cap in Nevada?+
No, and that is deliberate: the highest bracket (4 percent above $10,000 for one child) is what applies to very high incomes, so there is no line above which the guidelines stop. That is the opposite of Texas, where the guidelines are designed for net resources up to $11,700 a month and everything above it is left to a court. If you are in Nevada and your circumstances limit your ability to pay, the amount comes from a different table again: NAC 425.145 sends it to a low-income schedule that the Administrative Office of the Courts republishes every year from the federal poverty guidelines, and this page names that schedule rather than computing it.
What happens if I earn more than the $11,700 cap?+
In Texas, the guideline percentage stops at $11,700 of net resources: that is the amount the table is designed for, and the state’s own calculator does not compute support above it. Above that line an award is decided on the evidence - the children’s needs and the parents’ circumstances - so this page tells you how much of your income is above it instead of quietly multiplying the whole figure.
Why did the amount drop when I added children outside this order?+
Because those children share the same income. Texas reduces the share for the children in this order by a credit: the percentage for all of the children divided by the number of them, multiplied by the number outside the order, subtracted from one. It is what the state’s own calculator does with that field, and the arithmetic table shows the credit as its own line so you can see how much it removed.
Does this include medical support or childcare?+
Not in the table, in any state: the percentages and the schedules are the basic obligation, and everything else is ordered on top of it or argued about beside it. Virginia is the state whose own section says so most explicitly - subsections E and F add health care coverage and work-related child-care costs to its schedule figure before subdivision G 1 divides the total - so those two are fields on this page, with the rules that govern them taken from the Commonwealth’s worksheet: health care coverage counts when it is available at a cost of not more than 5 percent of the paying parent’s gross income, and includes vision and dental cover, while child care is the lesser of the actual cost and what quality care would cost. Leave them empty and the figure is the schedule’s own row, which is a floor. Uninsured medical costs, travel for visits, tax exemptions and anything the parents agree are still not in this arithmetic.
Assumptions and sources
Office of the Attorney General of Texas, "Monthly Child Support Calculator" - the page the Texas percentages, the low-income table, the $1,000 threshold and the $11,700 cap were read from, and the agency’s own calculator that applies them. Both pages are verified against the official text and kept on record, and every number matches the official table.
Texas Family Code Sec. 154.125 - the guideline percentages for monthly net resources, and the cap. The page prints the section it applies; the statutory text itself is served by the Texas Legislature through a browser-rendered application, so it is cited here rather than copied.
Nevada Legislature (Legislative Counsel Bureau), NAC 425 - Child Support, sections 425.140 and 425.145 - the schedule by number of children and bracket of gross monthly income (added by R183-18, effective 1 February 2020), and the paragraph that hands the low-income end to the Administrative Office of the Courts. Verified against the official text and kept on record; the three brackets and the “each additional child” paragraph match the official table.
State of Nevada, “Child Support Guidelines Calculator” - the state’s own calculator, which the guidelines page above links. Because its arithmetic runs on its server rather than in a script, it was asked the same questions this page asks instead of being read: the same inputs were put to its form and its six answers are kept on record with the regulation, together with the values that were posted. Five of them agree with this page to the cent, bracket by bracket; the sixth is the reading that matters most here - on a low income the state’s own calculator leaves the published percentages and answers from its Low-Income Payers table, which is NAC 425.145’s schedule and is not read here.
Division of Social Services, State of Nevada, "Child Support Guidelines" - the state’s own page, which links both that regulation and the state’s calculator. It is kept on record because it is where the regulation’s address was read from: no URL on this page was typed from memory, and the chain from the federal directory of state agencies to the rule can be walked back link by link.
Supreme Court of Virginia (Virginia’s Judicial System), FORM DC-637, “Child Support Guidelines Worksheet” - the form the section’s arithmetic is carried out on, and the page whose instructions this calculator follows for every rule that is smaller than a statute: “Use monthly financial information rounded to the nearest dollar”, with amounts of $.50 or more rounded up; the four payroll conversions (weekly ×4.33, bi-weekly ×2.167, semi-monthly ×2, annual ÷12); and lines 7.b and 7.c, which are the health care coverage figure subsection E adds (including vision and dental cover, and counted only when it is available at a cost of not more than 5% of the paying parent’s gross income) and the work-related child-care figure subsection F adds (“actual cost or the amount required to provide quality child care, whichever is less”). Both of those lines are blank on the form - the state computes neither - which is why they are fields here. It is verified against the official text and kept on record: it is a PDF, and those sentences, the four multipliers and the 5% limit match the official text.
Commonwealth of Virginia, Code of Virginia § 20-108.2, “Guideline for determination of child support; quadrennial review by Child Support Guidelines Review Panel; executive summary” - the table in subsection B (844 printed rows of combined monthly gross income, each with a basic obligation for one child through six), the percentages subsection B adds above $42,500, and the clauses this page prints: C on gross income and children outside the order, E and F on the costs added before the division, G 1 on the division itself, G 2 and G 3 on split and shared custody, and the presumptive minimum. Verified against the official text and kept on record; every one of those 844 rows matches the official table, line for line.
Virginia Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement - “Child Support Services” and “Understanding Child Support Amounts” - the two pages the section above was reached through, both kept on record. The federal directory links the agency, the agency’s own pages link the amounts page, and that page links § 20-108.2, so the chain from the directory to the statute can be walked back link by link. The same page states that the amount is set “based on a formula set by Virginia law”, which is the sentence this calculator is arithmetic on.
State of Georgia, Council of Superior Court Clerks of Georgia, “Basic Child Support Obligation Table (O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15), effective 1 July 2024” - the table (785 printed rows of dollar amounts against the combined monthly adjusted gross income of both parents, from a first row of $800 to a final row of $40,000), taking the nearest table row rather than interpolating, with the division, the Parenting Time Adjustment and the 19%–28% low-income adjustment explained. Verified against the official text and kept on record (reviewed 2026-09-22); every one of those 785 rows matches the official table, line for line.
Pennsylvania Code (Pennsylvania Bulletin system), 231 Pa. Code Rules 1910.16-3 and 1910.16-4 - the 574-row basic child support schedule of dollar amounts against the parties’ combined monthly net income (first row $1,300, final row $29,950, one amount for one through six children), and the rule that applies it in the proportion of each parent’s share of that combined income. Verified against the official text and kept on record; every one of the 574 rows matches the official table, line for line. Above the final row the case is a high-income case under Rule 1910.16-3.1, which this page names rather than computes; between two printed rows this page takes the nearer row, because the rule does not print an interpolation instruction in its text.
Ohio Revised Code § 3119.021(B)(1), “Basic child support schedule” - the percentages over shared income ranges for each number of children that the department of job and family services uses to derive the schedule (the same income ranges for every child count, with only the rates differing), and the section’s statement that below the minimum guideline income a self-sufficiency reserve and the minimum order under § 3119.06 govern. Verified against the official text and kept on record; all six children families of percentages match the official table, range by range. This page applies the section’s own “income of $X multiplied by r% plus e% of the excess” instruction to the combined income and divides the total between the parents by their shares; above the maximum guideline income the section sends the matter through its division (C) to the court or the parties, and the low end is named here rather than computed because the reserve is built on a federal poverty figure we have not read.
Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, Minnesota Statutes 2026 § 518A.35 - the Basic Support Schedule in subdivision 2 (188 printed rows of combined monthly parental income for determining child support: $0-$1,399, then $100 bands to 19,900-19,999, then $20,000 and over, each with an amount for one through six children), the division by proportionate share of the same combined income in subdivision 1, and subdivision 4(e)’s cap holding the presumptive amount at the $20,000 row. Verified against the official text and kept on record; all 188 rows match the official table, line for line. The rules § 518A.35 names but does not carry - the deduction for non-joint children (§ 518A.33) and the parenting expense adjustment (§ 518A.36) - are named in the clauses rather than computed.
New Jersey: New Jersey Courts (njcourts.gov), Appendix IX-F, “Schedule of Child Support Obligations based on Combined Net Weekly Income” - a 343-row dollar schedule read at the nearest printed row with a halfway point taken up (N.J. Ct. R. 5:6A makes Appendix IX the presumptive amount), effective 2025-09-01, covering combined **weekly** net income from $180 to $3,600 in $10 steps. The schedule is verified against the official text and kept on record; all 343 rows match the official table, line for line. Appendix IX keeps three rules outside this table: a shared-parenting formula, a Self-Support Reserve of 150% of the federal poverty guideline, and a net-income calculation for self-employment - all named in the clauses rather than computed.
Michigan: State Court Administrative Office, Michigan Supreme Court, “2025 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual - Supplement 1.02, Chapter 2 Economic Updates” - the General Care Support Tables (one child through five-or-more, each with the same six monthly net family income levels, and each row printing a Base Support in dollars, a Base Percentage and a Marginal Percentage) and the §2.01 Low Income Threshold are read out of this PDF and applied as the General Care Equation G = A + B×(C−D) under §3.02(B). The supplement is verified against the official text and kept on record; all five tables and the threshold match the official table, line for line. The low-income end (§2.01 threshold, §3.02(C)/(D) Low Income and Transition equations), the parenting-time offset (§3.03, which turns on overnights), and the court’s discretion above the top of the table (§3.02(E)) are named in the clauses rather than computed.
Missouri: Supreme Court of Missouri, Order 3093 (effective 1 January 2026), as republished by The Missouri Bar - “Form No. 14 Child Support Amount Calculation Worksheet” with its directions (direction A’s rounding, line 5’s low-income rule, the Child Care Tax Credit, the eighteen line 11 bands and the six self-support-reserve figures, line 12’s $0 floor) and the Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations printed with it (775 rows, line 5’s table). Verified against the official text and kept on record, and both match the official table line for line.
Office of Child Support Enforcement (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services), "State and Tribal Child Support Agency Contacts" - the federal directory used to point visitors at their own state’s agency while more states are added.
Not modelled: medical and dental support orders beyond the coverage figure the Virginia worksheet asks for, uninsured medical costs, travel, tax exemptions, arrears, retroactive modification, parents living in different states, and the parts of each state’s rule that are a court’s discretion rather than a table - in Nevada that includes the low-income schedule NAC 425.145 sends elsewhere, which the state’s own calculator applies on a low income instead of the percentages (asked about $1,000 a month for one child it answers $111.00), and the adjustment factors in NAC 425.150, and in Texas it includes everything above the $11,700 cap. In Virginia it includes line 11 of the worksheet (a deduction where the non-custodial parent pays the coverage directly rather than through the order) and line 12a (disability benefits received for the child where they were counted as the parent’s income), and the split-custody and shared-custody arithmetic of subdivisions G 2 and G 3 - the second of which multiplies the schedule’s figure for the shared children by 1.4 once a parent has custody or visitation for more than 90 days of the year, which this page names and does not compute. In Georgia it includes everything above the $40,000 top band (0%), the 19%–28% low-income adjustment, and the Parenting Time Adjustment, which this page names but does not compute. In Mississippi it includes everything above $100,000 or below $10,000 of annual adjusted gross income, where § 43-19-101(4) requires the court to record whether applying the guidelines is reasonable. In Alabama it includes everything above the $30,000 top row, which Rule 32 sends to a court’s discretion rather than extrapolating, and the health coverage and work-related child care Rule 32(B)(8) adds outside the table. In Minnesota it includes the deduction for a non-joint child under § 518A.33 and the parenting expense adjustment under § 518A.36, both of which come from the order rather than this table. In New Jersey it includes everything below the $180 first row (the court fixes it between $5 and that row’s amount) and above the $3,600 top (the schedule prints “DO NOT EXTRAPOLATE” and the excess is the court’s under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23), as well as the shared-parenting formula, the Self-Support Reserve of 150% of the federal poverty guideline, and the self-employment net-income calculation - all of which Appendix IX keeps outside this table. In Michigan it includes the parenting-time offset of §3.03 (which turns on the overnights count and is not computed here - any parenting-time deviation is left to the court’s discretion), the §2.01 low-income threshold and the Low Income and Transition equations of §3.02(C)/(D), and everything above the $17,871.57 top of the General Care table, which §3.02(E) sends to the court’s discretion rather than extrapolating. In Missouri it includes the income inclusions and deductions the directions discuss on pages 3 to 13, the “unjust or inappropriate” deviation and increment orders, and the four worksheet lines this page has no field for - line 1a’s maintenance received, lines 2a and 2b’s other support and maintenance paid, and line 2c’s second lookup - which are left at zero, so a form with any of them filled in prints a different line 12.
Last reviewed 2026-11-01. An estimate, not a return, and not tax advice. Read the full disclaimer.
Where a figure on this page comes from an official agency — HUD, IRS, FICO or a state body — the site keeps a dated snapshot of the source page in its sources library, and a scheduled job re-checks that snapshot, so the number can be traced back to the document it came from.
Danfio