What is the Income Shares Model for Child Support Calculations?

Published on
May 16, 2022
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Custody and Child Support

In the past, we’ve reviewed the procedure for calculating child support amounts in Maryland overall, but this blog discusses the income portion as determined under the income shares model. Maryland uses the “income shares model,” i.e. that parents contribute a child support amount consistent with their relative percentage of their combined income. In this post, we will build on our previous discussions by examining the calculation method in greater detail, including the factors that go into the calculation.

Factors Involved in the Income Shares Model Calculation

Combined Parental Income / Number of Children

Maryland uses income shares model, so the parents share the child support obligation according to a fixed formula. Each parent’s income is taken and added together, and then a total support amount is derived by looking at the number of dependent children they will support. Then, each parent’s monthly payment is adjusted based on several other factors, which are reviewed below.

Computation of Gross / Net Income

When parents combine their income to determine the support amount, they use pre-established rules to compute net and gross income. Parents will need to consult the official sources in Maryland for the rules, but they don’t contain any big surprises. Gross income will include nearly all forms of income – commissions, salaries, self-employment income, gambling winnings, etc. Net income computation follows a predictable path: certain deductions can be taken to lower gross income, but deductions are minimal. Computation of net income for Maryland child support does not allow some things that IRS allows.

Adjustments for Parenting Time / Alimony / Other Child Support in Income Shares Model

Parents will be able to make adjustments to their child support amount based on various things. Non-custodial parents can adjust depending on how many nights per week the child is in their care and custody. Similarly, both parents (custodial and non-custodial) can make adjustments based on alimony paid to a previous spouse and child support paid to another child of a prior case. These adjustments allow the current child support obligation to reflect the parents’ financial situation more accurately.

Adjustments for Healthcare / Daycare in Income Shares Model

In addition to parenting time, alimony, and other child support obligations, parents can also make adjustments for costs associated with healthcare and daycare. Both custodial and non-custodial parents can make these adjustments. If a non-custodial parent contributes a certain amount of money for the child’s monthly healthcare, it will accordingly lower his or her monthly child support payment. Again, the logic underlying these adjustments is always consistent. These adjustments allow a more accurate portrayal of a parent’s financial situation than without the adjustments.Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More InformationIf you’d like to learn more about Child Support Calculation, or other related issues, contact the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

adjustment|Child custody|Child Support|children support amount|Custodial parents|Divorce|Family Law|financial situation|gross income|income|Income shares model|net income|obligation|parents

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.