Gross income includes, but is not limited to, salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust income, recurring monetary gifts, annuities, capital gains, social security benefits (in some circumstances), worker’s compensation benefits, allowances for housing and subsistence from military pay and benefits (BAH and BAS), unemployment insurance benefits, disability insurance benefits, and spousal support received from a pre-existing spousal support obligation.1

Note that gifts and lottery proceeds are not included as “gross income.” Previously, lottery proceeds were specifically excluded from gross income. However, the law has been amended and lottery proceeds are no longer specifically excluded. Thus, such proceeds may be counted as income. Depending upon the size and character of gifts, they may be considered by the court under La. R.S. 9:315.1 as a basis for a deviation from the guidelines.

Gross income also includes expense reimbursements or in-kind payments received by a parent in the course of employment, self-employment, or operation of a business, if these reimbursements or payments are significant and reduce the parent’s personal living expenses.2  These types of payments may include, but are not limited to a company car, free housing, or reimbursed meals. The court may also consider as income the benefits a party derives from expense sharing or other sources.3  In computing expense sharing with another spouse, it is inappropriate to consider the income of another spouse, except to the extent that such income is used directly to reduce the costs of a party’s actual expenses.4

• 1La. R.S. 9:315(C)(3).
• 2Id.
• 3La. R.S. 9:315(C)(5)(c).
• 4Id.

Gross income also includes gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce income from self-employment, rent, royalties, proprietorship of a business, joint ownership, partnership, or closely held corporation.1  Ordinary and necessary expenses do not include amounts allowable by the IRS for the accelerated component of depreciation expenses or investment tax credits or any other business expenses determined by the court to be inappropriate for determining gross income for the purposes of calculating child support.2

It may be difficult to imagine how this works in practice. Proving income for self-employed persons is difficult without the necessary documentation. Thus, the first course of action is to request (informally or through discovery) tax returns, profit-and-loss statements, or other documentation. To be excluded from income, the expenses must be “ordinary and necessary” in the course of business, and they must be required to produce that income; they must not be personal. Further, the burden is on the self-employed person to prove that the expenses are necessary to produce income.3  If the defendant is alleging expenses associated with starting up a company, the defendant must have documentary proof; something more than testimony is required.4  Additionally, La. R.S. 9:315.1.1 addresses redirected income, payments made to the obligor from a company in which the obligor has an ownership interest, and deferred income. Most cases do not have these issues, but you should be familiar with this article, just in case.

• 1La. R.S. 9:315(C)(3)(c).
• 2Id.
• 3Hensgens v. Hensgens, 2019-485 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/18/19), 287 So. 3d 795.
• 4Bailey v. Bailey, 2019-644 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/11/20), 297 So. 3d 58.

Gross income does not include child support received by the parent, benefits received from public assistance programs including FITAP, SSI, food stamps, and disaster assistance benefits, per diem allowances which are not subject to federal income taxation, and extraordinary over-time or income attributed to seasonal work regardless of the percentage of gross income when, in the court’s discretion, inclusion would be inequitable.1

• 1La. R.S. 9:315(C)(3)(d).

A party cannot avoid child support obligations through voluntary unemployment or underemployment. If a party has made only “token” job hunting efforts with few results, has applied only for work within a preferred field, and has not considered or pursued other career options, the courts are inclined to base the party’s income not on the lower amount of current earnings, but rather upon the party’s earning potential.1

Analysis of voluntary unemployment or underemployment is generally a question of good faith. Good faith is a factual issue to be determined by the court. A parent whose change in circumstances is due to voluntary termination of employment may obtain reduction in child support payments by showing all of the following:

1. A change in circumstances occurred.
2. The voluntary change in circumstances is reasonable and justified.
3. The parent is in good faith and not attempting to avoid the child support obligation.
4. The change in employment will not deprive the child of continued reasonable financial support.2

In virtually every case in which a parent’s voluntary unemployment or underemployment is found to be in good faith, our courts have recognized extenuating circumstances beyond the parent’s control that influenced and necessitated the voluntary change of employment. Courts have generally allowed a reduction in child support where parents were returning to school with hopes of increasing their salary or leaving employment (and seeking other employment) due to a business’ financial difficulty or a strained working relationship or to start a new business. In almost every case, our courts noted that the unemployment or underemployment was a short-term sacrifice that could lead to a long-term benefit.

• 1Gould v. Gould, 28,996 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/24/97), 687 So. 2d 685; see also Glover v. Glover, 28,493 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/26/96), 677 So. 2d 659.
• 2La. R.S. 9:315.1(A).

The projection of an income for a voluntarily underemployed or unemployed individual is not applicable if:

• The party is unemployable.1
• The party is incapable of employment.2
• The unemployment exists without fault or neglect of the party.3
• The party is physically or mentally incapacitated.4
• The party is actually caring for a child of the parties under the age of 5.5

Note that the child must be a “child of the parties.” Other children do not exempt a parent from being considered voluntarily underemployed or unemployed.

• 1La. R.S. 9:315(C)(5)(b).
• 2Id.
• 3Id.
• 4La. R.S. 9:315.11(A)(1).
• 5Id.

In determining gross income for calculating support, one may look at a party’s actual gross income if the party is employed to full capacity or may look to potential income if the party is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.1

If a party is voluntarily underemployed or unemployed, child support is calculated based on the party’s income earning potential, i.e., the amount of income a person is capable of earning based on career choice, education, and skill level.2  In voluntary unemployment or underemployment cases, our courts will usually use the wage earned by the party prior to voluntary underemployment or unemployment as the best estimate of the obligated party’s potential income. If that is not feasible, a court may also use the most recently published Louisiana Occupational Employment Wage Survey.3

The amount of the basic child support obligation obtained by use of the provisions for voluntary unemployment or underemployment cannot exceed that amount that the party paying child support would have owed had no determination of the payee’s income potential been made.4

In the absence of evidence of income earning potential, there is a rebuttable presumption that a party could earn income equal to the amount that could be earned for 32 hours per week of work at the prevailing minimum wage.5  It may seem frustrating to litigate a case for a minimum amount of income; however, small amounts may be essential to low-income clients.

These types of cases present themselves often. Remember that your standard of appeal is manifest error.6  Appellate courts do not want to get into the weeds of calculating income unless they must. Therefore, the more information you can get into the court record to prove your argument, the better.

• 1La. R.S. 9:315(C)(5)(a)–(b).
• 2La. R.S. 9:315.11(A)(1).
• 3See La. R.S. 9:315.1.1(B); see also La. R.S. 13:3712.1 (requiring a court to accept a copy of a self-authenticating report from the Department of Labor, or from any state or reporting agency, as prima facie proof of its contents).
• 4See La. R.S. 9:315.11(B).
• 5La. R.S. 9:315.11(A)(2).
• 6La. R.S. 9:315.17.

Voluntary unemployment and underemployment issues have been frequently litigated, so there is a substantial body of caselaw available.

In Mayo v. Crazovich, the obligor left his unstable cementing business to enter the upholstery business to improve his financial condition. The court determined that if a voluntary change of circumstances is reasonable, justified, and in good faith without the intent to avoid the child support obligation, the obligor will not be deemed to be voluntarily underemployed even if the new business fails to turn a profit despite the obligor’s diligent effort.1

In Saussy v. Saussy, the obligor was fired from his employment through no fault or neglect of his own. Thereafter, he obtained another job that paid significantly less than his prior employment. His failure to apply for jobs in which he could reach his previous earning potential was not deemed to be voluntary underemployment insofar as the loss of income was deemed temporary. Also, the father in this case testified and the court accepted his testimony that with the change of employment he had more time to spend with his children. The court stated that a father’s children benefit not only by the money he is able to earn, but also by the presence of his company, and nowhere does the law require that a parent work 60 to 70 hours per week to the detriment of his children’s right to his company.2

In Koch v. Koch, the father sought to reduce his child support obligation by alleging that he had a significant decrease in income. The court determined that he was voluntarily underemployed because he worked approximately 70 hours per week, without compensation, for a company of which he was a one-third owner. The court determined that he had made several voluntary choices regarding investments of assets that resulted in loss of income. He was not entitled to rely on his bad investment decisions to reduce his child support obligation.3

In Lewis v. Lewis, the court stated that losing a job due to a medical illness could not be defined as voluntary and explained that voluntary unemployment must be brought about by an obligor’s “own fault or neglect.”4

In Hutto v. Kneipp, the father, a pastor, left full-time employment and a part-time job to enter the ministry. The court determined that Rev. Kneipp was in bad faith, noting the time frame in which he resigned from his prior employment coincided with the child support award. The court determined that the obligor was voluntarily underemployed and that his income earning potential must be considered in calculating his child support obligation. The court also determined that it was appropriate to calculate Rev. Kneipp’s income based solely on his prior full-time position rather than both of his former positions because “he was not in the habit of holding a second job when he had a permanent full-time position in the past” and because the minor difference in the child support awards would not deprive the child of reasonable support.5

In Greene v. Greene, the court determined that the mother was voluntarily underemployed insofar as she had quit her job in an attorney’s office to take a lower paying job so that she could spend more time at home with her children, all of whom were over the age of five years. The court concluded that the mother’s higher rate of pay should be utilized in calculating the obligor’s child support.6  Consistent with Greene, the court in Toups v. Toups reasoned that a wife with a history of full-time employment, but who, at the time of trial, was only employed part-time by her current husband, could be imputed income at her current part-time salary plus minimum wages up to full-time.7

• 1621 So. 2d 120 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1993); see also Lauve v. Lauve, 2008-0076 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/20/08), 6 So. 3d 184.
• 293-1303 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/15/94), 638 So. 2d 711; see also Walden v. Walden, 2000-2911 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/14/02), 835 So. 2d 513.
• 397-1600 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/22/98), 714 So. 2d 63; see also State, Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Swords, 2008-0580 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/5/08), 996 So. 2d 1267.
• 42018-0378 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/3/18), 255 So. 3d 1216.
• 5627 So. 2d 802 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1993).
• 693-789 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 634 So. 2d 1286.
• 797-0620 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/8/98), 708 So. 2d 849; see also Lewis v. Lewis, 616 So. 2d 744 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993); Leonard v. Leonard, 615 So. 2d 909 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993).

In computing monthly adjusted gross income on the child support worksheet, one should subtract any pre-existing child support obligations established by judgment from a litigant’s monthly gross income. To be deductible, the obligation must result from an actual court order, not an extrajudicial agreement. The burden is on the party seeking the reduction to provide the court order so that it can be property assessed. The first child support/spousal support judgment obtained will always be pre-existing, even if it has been subsequently modified; the modification does not change the “pre-existing” character of the judgment.

At times, a defendant may raise the argument that they are caring for a child or children not of these parties and seek a deviation. Courts have consistently required explanation of those expenses, but this deviation is discretionary and can only be made if it is not harmful to the best interest of the child of the current proceeding or would be inequitable to the parties.1  If the court allows this deviation, it must give specific reasons.2

After subtracting either or both of these obligations from a litigant’s monthly gross income, one arrives at the monthly adjusted gross income to be entered on Line 2 of the Child Support Worksheet.

• 1La. R.S. 9:315.1(B)(1).
• 2Bell v. Jackson, 2018-1075, p. 9 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/31/19), 278 So. 3d 382, 388–89.

To obtain this figure, add the monthly obligations of each parent found on Line 2.

To arrive at this percentage, divide each party’s monthly adjusted gross income (Line 2) by the total of the parties’ adjusted gross income (Line 3).

This requires reference to the schedule of basic child support obligations contained in La. R.S. 9:315.14.

If the amount of the combined income falls between the guidelines, one figures the exact child support by extrapolation as in the following example:

Assume the combined income of the parties is $2,093. Thus, the income amount falls between $2,050 and $2,100. The child support for two children at $2,050 is $562. The child support for two children at $2,100 is $575. To arrive at the proper child support amount for $2,093, one should do the following calculations. $575 - $562 = $13. Subtract $2,050 from $2,093 = $43. Multiply 43 x 2 = 86. Now, multiply $13 x .86 = $11.18. Add $11.18 to $562 = $573.18. $573.18 is the basic child support obligation. This number should be placed on Line 5.

Per La. R.S. 9:315.3, the net childcare costs are determined by applying the Federal Credit for Child and Dependent Care Expenses provided in IRS Form 2441 to the total or actual childcare costs. The form may be downloaded from http://www.irs.gov and is available for children aged 13 or younger. This is an addition to the basic child support obligation. Be mindful that your client must produce some sort of proof and that a statement from an in-home provider usually needs further substantiation.

Child support includes medical support. Per La. R.S. 9:315.4, the court may order one of the parties to maintain health insurance for the child. In determining which party should be required to maintain such insurance, the court considers each party’s insurance policy and the parties’ work history, personal income, and other resources.

When health insurance is provided by the payor parent, a credit must be given to that parent in the amount of the premium. Thus, after one enters in the premium amount, this amount is then subtracted from the payor parent’s child support obligation on Line 8 of Worksheet A to obtain the Recommended Child Support Order.

Health insurance premiums added to the Basic Child Support Obligation do not include any amount paid by an employer or any amounts paid for coverage of persons other than the child. If more than one dependent is covered by health insurance that is paid through a lump sum dependent coverage premium and not all such dependents are the subject of the guidelines calculation, the coverage is pro-rated among the dependents covered before being entered onto the worksheet.

A Qualified Medical Child Support Order (QMCSO) may also be sought, especially if the State is involved.1  The QMCSO is an order of the court that provides for child support or health care benefit coverage to a qualified dependent (child) of a participant (parent) in a group health plan. In all cases where the child is on a medical card, the Louisiana DCFS is an indispensable party to any QMCSO being entered. Per the subrogation of rights that parents sign when they get public benefits, DCFS is a party and must be served.

Sometimes both parents provide health insurance. This comes up most often if one parent changes jobs frequently and loses the private insurance. The other parent then obtains private insurance so as to allow coverage to continue without lapse. In this situation, the court has the discretion to give credits to both parties or to only one—the one with the obligation to provide the insurance.

• 1See 29 U.S.C. § 1169; La. R.S. 46:236.8.

Per La. R.S. 9:315.5, by court order or consent of the parties, extraordinary expenses incurred on behalf of the child shall be added to the basic child support obligation. Most courts will impute expenses in proportion to the parties share of gross income.

Extraordinary medical expenses are defined as “unreimbursed medical expenses which exceed two hundred fifty dollars per child per calendar year.”1  These expenses include, but are not limited to, reasonable and necessary costs for dental treatment, orthodontist, asthma treatments, physical therapy, and treatment for chronic health problems or professional counseling or psychiatric therapy for diagnosed mental disorders not covered by medical insurance.2

Some courts may not add these expenses into the obligation, despite the mandatory language. If it is a regularly occurring expense, it may be included; however, because these expenses “reset” each year (and for each child), there is generally not a set cost that is incurred each month. Thus, some courts may exclude the expenses with guidance to keep records of the expenses as they occur. Once the $250 is reached, the parent incurring the cost must notify the other parent that the expenses have been reached. Thereafter, the parties share in proportion to their percentage share of the total obligation.

An example may clarify the application of this provision. By June 1, Mother has expended $1000.00 in medical expenses for child #1. She alerts Father (in writing) that the expenses were incurred and provides documentation of invoices and payments in full. Once this occurs, Father must begin (either by reimbursement to mother or via direct payment to the provider) sending his proportionate share. If Father has 75% of the total support obligation, the calculation looks like this:

$1000.00 less $250 = $750.00.

$750.00 * 75%=$562.50 owed to Mother or to the provider

Also remember that the other parent may have also incurred medical expenses for the child. In that case, the other parent may offset the amount due by their proportionate share of the expenses incurred. To continue the above example, Mother has provided the $1000.00 in expenses above. Father’s share is $562.50. However, Father also has $500.00 in expenses he has paid in the same year. Thus, Father is entitled to an offset of 25% of the expenses he paid ($562.50 less 25% or $140.63). His obligation at that point in time would be $421.88 owed to Mother or the provider.

As these calculations can get complex, a spreadsheet is always helpful. Just make sure your client has explanations of benefits, invoices, and proof of payment in order to litigate this claim.

• 1La. R.S. 9:315.5.
• 2La. R.S. 9:315(C)(8).

Per La. R.S. 9:315.6, by court order or consent of the parties, certain other expenses incurred on behalf of the child may be added to the basic child support obligation. Private or special elementary or secondary school tuition, books, and supplies may be included provided that the school is necessary to meet the needs of the child.1  Transportation expenses to get the child from one party to the other may be included on this line.2  These expenses may also include extracurricular recreational activities such as dancing lessons, baseball, or gymnastics, but the activities have to “enhance the health, athletic, social, or cultural development of the child.”3  The parent seeking to include the expense(s) has the burden of proof.4

In Guillory v. Ventre, the court compared what the private school can provide the child to what public schools can provide to address the same educational need.5  Private school tuition can be added to the basic child support obligation where the children had always attended private school and the family always had adequate income to pay for such tuition.6  Another instance is when the parties have agreed to private schooling prior to separation or prior to the matter coming to court.7  But the party attempting to include the expense should provide evidence of the child’s educational need or the historical context for the child’s attendance.8

• 1La. R.S. 9:315.6(1). Although older cases required a “particular educational need,” the statute was amended in 2001 to require only that the schooling meet “the needs of the child.” Short v. Short, 11-CA-3 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/25/11), 77 So. 3d 405.
• 2La. R.S. 9:315.6(2).
• 3La. R.S. 9:315.6(3).
• 4See Basile v. Basile, 2004-25 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/12/04), 872 So. 2d 1274.
• 5610 So. 2d 1056 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1992).
• 6See Valure v. Valure, 96-1684, p. 2 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97), 696 So. 2d 685, 687.
• 7La. R.S. 315.6 (allowing inclusion of private school expenses “[b]y agreement of the parties”).
• 8Valure, 96-1684, p. 2; 696 So. 2d at 687.

Per La. R.S. 9:315.7, a child’s income may be used to reduce that child’s basic needs and thus may be deducted from the basic child support obligation. However, this provision does not apply to income earned by a child while he/she is a full-time student, regardless of whether such income was earned during a summer or holiday break.1  Also, public benefits (e.g., FITAP food stamps, or other means-tested programs) received by a child are not included.2  Any lump sum payments received by the child are credited to outstanding arrears; however, this can only be done after an evidentiary hearing.3

Although placed in the provision for deductions based on a child’s income, Social Security Disability benefits “received by a child due to the earnings of a parent shall be credited as child support to the parent upon whose earning record it is based, by crediting the amount against the potential obligation of that parent.”4  This provision “require[s] the court to credit the social security benefits to the parent’s child support obligation, rather than deduct[] the benefits from the basic child support obligation as income of the child benefitting both parents under Section A.”5  The credit is given not against the ultimate child support order, but rather against the potential child support obligation of the disabled parent.6  Thus, if the child receives Social Security Disability benefits based on a disabled parent’s earnings history, a credit is given against that parent’s potential obligation (as determined after multiplying the basic child support obligation by that parent’s percentage of income).7  Thus, the credit is given after the calculation that produces the result to be entered on Line 7 of Worksheet A is complete. Note that the custodial parent may directly receive the benefits from the government on behalf of the child, regardless of which parent is disabled.8

Barrett v. Barrett illustrates the treatment of disability benefits paid to a child based on a disabled parent’s earnings history.9  Mr. Barrett was blinded after being shot in the face while hunting. Subsequently, Mr. and Ms. Barrett divorced. At that time, their three children were receiving social security benefits of $498 per month due to Mr. Barrett’s disability; this was paid to Ms. Barrett. The court computed the basic child support obligation as $915 per month. Based on the parties’ incomes, Mr. Barrett owed 54% of the total child support obligation, which amounted to $494.10. Because $498 is greater than $494.10, applying the credit resulted in Mr. Barrett owing no additional child support.

• 1La. R.S. 9:315.7(B).
• 2La. R.S. 9:315.7(C).
• 3La. R.S. 9:315.7(E).
• 4La. R.S. 9:315.7(D) (emphasis added).
• 5Barrett v. Barrett, 20-266, p. 8 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/24/21), 314 So. 3d 1023, 1032.
• 6State ex rel. Dep’t of Child. & Family Servs. v. Peters, 2014-1800 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/5/15), 174 So. 3d 1200.
• 7Barrett, 20-266, p. 8, 314 So. 3d at 1032 (applying rule to nondomiciliary parent); Peters, 2014-1800, 174 So. 3d 1200 (applying rule to potential obligation of domiciliary parent).
• 8See Cloud v. Dean, 2015-297, pp. 9–10 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/16/15), 181 So. 3d 936, 943.
• 920-266 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/24/21), 314 So. 3d 1023.

Per La. R.S. 9:315.8, the total child support obligation is computed by adding together the basic child support amount (Line 5), the net childcare costs (Line 5a), the cost of health insurance premiums (Line 5b), extraordinary medical expenses (Line 5c), and other extraordinary expenses (Line 5d) less the child’s income (Line 5e), if applicable.

Per La. R.S. 9:315.8(C), each party’s child support obligation is determined by multiplying the total child support obligation by the percentage each party’s income bears to the combined monthly adjusted gross income (Line 4) expressed as a decimal.

Direct payments are those made by the noncustodial parent on behalf of the child for work-related net childcare costs, health insurance premiums, extraordinary medical expenses, or extraordinary expenses provided as adjustments to the schedule. Per La. R.S. 9:315.8(D), this amount is deducted from the child support obligation owed by the non-custodial parent.

At times, you may have a client that has more than every other weekend (or some other variation of a standard custody order). For example, if a mother has custody every other weekend, plus a day during the week, all holiday breaks and summer, this amounts to nearly 150 days out of the year. The child support guidelines allow for credits in the case of parents who have more than a “standard” every other weekend custodial plan.

In cases of joint custody, the court “shall consider the period of time spent by the child with the non-domiciliary party as a basis for adjustments to the amount of child support to be paid during that period of time.”1  If, under a joint custody order, the person ordered to pay child support has physical custody of the child for more than 73 days, the court may order a credit to the child support obligation.2  It is not mandatory for a court to grant this credit.3  How much custodial time is necessary to constitute a “day” is determined by the court but must be at least 4 hours of physical custody.4  The burden of proof is on the person seeking the credit.5

Do the Louisiana Child Support Guidelines automatically allow for a deviation based solely on the amount of time a non-domiciliary parent spends with a child? No. In Guillot v. Munn, the Supreme Court ruled that an automatic deviation is not allowed.6  According to the court,

[T]he party urging a reduction in the child support obligation based on the amount of time spent with the child must bear the burden of proving that he or she exercises shared custody or extraordinary visitation with the child, that the extra time spent with the non-domiciliary parent results in a greater financial burden on that parent and a concomitant lesser financial burden on the domiciliary parent, and finally, that the application of the guidelines would not be in the child’s best interest or would be inequitable to the parties.7

A possible argument that may succeed in this situation is the so-called “11/12ths rule.” For example, if the parents are joint custodians and the mother has the children for the 9 months of the school year and the father has the children for the 3-month summer school-vacation period, the court may give the non-domiciliary parent a break on his child support. At the same time, the court recognizes that the domiciliary parent’s expenses do not substantially decrease just because the children are not in the home during the summer. Thus, one would initially calculate monthly child support as usual for the payor parent. This amount is then multiplied by 11 months and then divided by 12. Thus, payor parent gets credit for one month of support in recognition of the summer custodial time with the children. Remember, findings of the trial court cannot be disturbed absent manifest error, and appellate courts give great deference to those findings. Therefore, if this method would benefit your client, be sure to have the judgment lay out this calculation.

Several cases illustrate the application of this adjustment. In Nixon v Nixon, the court determined that where custody of two children was split between the parents with both children living with the father during the summer months, the support obligation should be first determined separately for the number of children in the domiciliary custody for each parent.8  The amount of child support each parent owes the other is next calculated by multiplying the owed support obligation by the parent’s proportionate share of the combined adjusted income. The amounts the parties owe each other is then offset. After Mr. Nixon’s support obligation was proportioned over 12 months, he owed only $98.47 per month.9

In In re Birkenstock, the children spent 50% of the time with their mother and 50% of their time with the father, and the father wanted his child support obligation reduced from $755 to $377.50. The trial court reduced his obligation to $500 stating, “there is no hard and fast rule to determine just how much to reduce the child support obligation based on percentage of time the children live with either parent.”10

In Falterman v. Falterman, the court held that adjustments to child support do not have to be made in proportion to the amount of time the children spend with the non-domiciliary parent. Here, the children spent 40% of their time with their father during the school year and 60% of their time with him during the summer months. The court found that the children’s ongoing expenses provided by the mother were unaffected during the time the children were with their father and refused to reduce support for the time spent with their father.11

In Temple v. Temple, the court determined that “the statute . . . merely requires that the court consider time spent with the non-domiciliary parent but does not require that the court make an adjustment for this time.”12

Calhoun v. Calhoun states that the court is not obligated to make adjustments and give credits. There are no rules for this reduction based on the amount of time spent with ether parent. It is always discretionary with the court, but a wise practitioner should know this statute if they are defending a child support case.13

• 1La. R.S. 9:315.8(E)(1).
• 2La. R.S. 9:315.8(E)(2).
• 3Id.
• 4Id.
• 5La. R.S. 9:315.8(E)(4).
• 61999-2132 (La. 3/24/00), 756 So. 2d 290.
• 7Id.
• 825,481 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/19/94), 631 So. 2d 42; see also Berry v. Berry, 2000-0617 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So. 2d 318.
• 9See also Jones v. Jones, 38,790 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/25/04), 877 So. 2d 1061 (considering the relative time spent with each parent under La. R.S. 9:315.8(E)).
• 1095-586 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/13/95), 666 So. 2d 1168; see also Atkinson v. Atkinson, 2016-0759 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/15/17), 212 So. 3d 631.
• 1197-192 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/8/97), 702 So. 2d 781.
• 1294-1244 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/15/95), 651 So. 2d 466.
• 1352,915 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 316 So. 3d 1209.

Per La. R.S. 9:315.8(D), the payor parent owes the total child support obligation less any court-ordered direct payments in Line 8. However, La. R.S. 9:315.14 requires a minimum child support award of $100 per month except in shared or split custody as provided in R.S. 9:315.9–.10. If the obligor has a medically documented disability that limits the obligor’s ability to meet the mandatory minimum, the court may set an award of less than $100.

When a client is on SSI, SSI is not included in gross income.1  In State v. Duncan,2  the court recognized the statutory prohibition against counting SSI as income. This is an exception to the mandatory minimum award, and, as always, courts may deviate.

• 1La. R.S. 9:315(C)(3)(d)(i).
• 22010-0426 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/29/10), 2010 WL 4273103.