States with child support caps limit how much of a parent’s income the guideline formula will consider, not how much a court can ultimately order. Texas caps the net monthly income used in its formula at $11,700. New York applies its percentages to combined parental income up to $193,000 a year. Tennessee’s schedule tops out at $28,250 in combined monthly income. Georgia and Colorado stop their tables at $30,000 a month in combined income. Above those thresholds, the formula hands off to the judge, and the guideline figure becomes a presumptive floor rather than a ceiling.
How the Two Cap Mechanisms Work
States calculate child support one of two ways, and the cap does different work in each.
In percentage-of-income states like Texas, the court applies a fixed percentage to the paying parent’s net resources. The cap limits how much of that income enters the calculation. In income shares states like New York and Tennessee, both parents’ incomes are combined and the obligation is split proportionally. The cap limits the combined figure the formula covers.
In either system, the cap is presumptive. The guideline amount is what the court starts with and is considered reasonable unless someone shows otherwise. The parent receiving support can argue the child’s actual needs exceed the formula figure. The paying parent can argue the formula already overshoots what the child reasonably costs. The cap just sets the default starting line.
Texas: $11,700 Monthly Net Resources
Texas uses the most straightforward cap. The guidelines apply to a maximum of $11,700 in monthly net resources as of September 1, 2025, up from the prior $9,200 threshold. Whether a parent nets $15,000 or $150,000 a month, the formula starts from $11,700.1State of Texas. Texas Family Code Section 154.125 – Application of Guidelines to Net Resources
The percentages are tied to the number of children:
- One child: 20% ($2,340 per month)
- Two children: 25% ($2,925 per month)
- Three children: 30% ($3,510 per month)
- Four children: 35% ($4,095 per month)
- Five or more: 40% ($4,680 per month)
Texas reviews the cap every six years. A court can order more than the guideline amount, but the parent asking for additional support carries the burden of showing why the standard calculation falls short.
New York: $193,000 Combined Annual Income
New York’s Child Support Standards Act uses an income shares model and applies statutory percentages to combined parental income up to $193,000 a year as of 2026.2New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. Child Support Standards Chart The percentages are:
- One child: 17%
- Two children: 25%
- Three children: 29%
- Four children: 31%
- Five or more: no less than 35%
Above $193,000, the court has discretion. It can apply the same percentages to the excess, use a different method, or cap the obligation at the amount calculated on $193,000. There is no requirement to extend the formula upward and no prohibition against doing so.2New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. Child Support Standards Chart Each parent’s share of the total obligation tracks their share of the combined income, so a parent who earns 70% of the total pays 70% of the calculated support.3New York State Child Support Services. Establish Order
Tennessee: $28,250 Combined Monthly Income
Tennessee bases support on the combined adjusted gross income of both parents.4Cornell Law Institute. Tennessee Code Rules and Regulations 1240-02-04-.03 The published schedule of basic support obligations covers combined incomes up to $28,250 per month. At that level, the schedule produces $2,231 for one child and $2,803 for two.5Tennessee Department of Human Services. Child Support Guidelines Schedule
Tennessee does not impose a hard cap. Above $28,250, the obligation keeps growing but at sharply reduced marginal rates: roughly 6.8% of additional income for one child and 7.2% for two.5Tennessee Department of Human Services. Child Support Guidelines Schedule Support amounts climb much more slowly past the top of the schedule, producing a soft cap even though the formula technically extends indefinitely.
Georgia, Colorado, and Pennsylvania
Most income shares states publish tables that top out at a specific combined income. Georgia’s guidelines cover combined adjusted gross income up to $30,000 per month. Colorado caps its schedule at the same $30,000 monthly figure and authorizes judges to use discretion above that level, but requires them to order at least the amount the schedule would produce at the highest listed income.
Pennsylvania is more detailed for high-income families. State rules direct courts to calculate support using a formula for combined incomes above the guidelines table, then allow adjustment based on the child’s reasonable needs. Pennsylvania also explicitly requires shared custody adjustments in high-income cases, which was not always the rule under older case law.6Pennsylvania Code. Support Guidelines – High-Income Cases
Dollar thresholds and rules differ in every state, so the point at which guidelines stop providing automatic answers depends on where the case is filed.
When Courts Order More Than the Capped Amount
Courts can exceed the presumptive guideline figure when the evidence supports it. The common grounds fall into a few categories.
Extraordinary Needs
If a child has expenses well beyond typical costs, the capped amount may not cover them. Specialized medical treatment, therapy for a disability, or intensive educational support can push actual needs above what the formula produces. The parent requesting additional support has to document the costs specifically rather than argue in the abstract that the child deserves more.
Pre-Separation Standard of Living
When a child grew up with private school, competitive sports, or a household where significant spending on enrichment was normal, courts may find the capped amount insufficient to maintain that lifestyle. The reasoning is that the child should not experience a dramatic downgrade because of the parents’ separation when one parent has the resources to prevent it. Judges look at the family’s actual spending patterns before the split, not hypothetical costs.
Educational Trusts and Post-Majority Support
Some courts direct high-income parents to fund trusts or contribute to college expenses on top of the guideline amount. Whether a court can order a parent to pay for post-secondary education depends entirely on state law; there is no federal requirement. In states that allow it, the court weighs both parents’ financial resources, the child’s academic abilities, and the family’s history around educational expectations. Parents can also voluntarily agree to college contributions as part of a settlement, often with a cap tied to in-state public university costs.
Good Fortune Trusts
In some states, when the guideline formula produces an amount that clearly exceeds a child’s day-to-day needs, the court can split the obligation. The custodial parent receives the portion covering the child’s reasonable monthly expenses, and the remainder goes into a trust for the child’s benefit after they reach adulthood. This keeps the support payment from functioning as a wealth transfer to the custodial parent while still letting the child benefit from the paying parent’s income over the long term.
Bonuses, Stock Options, and Other Variable Pay
High earners often receive a significant share of their compensation through bonuses, stock options, restricted stock units, and other non-salary packages. Courts generally treat these as income, but the details matter. A recurring annual bonus that appears every year gets folded into the income calculation like a salary. A one-time signing bonus or windfall may not, because it does not represent ongoing earning capacity.
Stock options and equity grants raise harder questions. If the parent exercises options and realizes a profit, that profit counts. If options remain unexercised and have no current cash value, courts may treat them differently depending on whether they are part of a regular compensation package or a one-time award. Deferred compensation and executive perks like company cars or housing allowances can also count to the extent they provide a real economic benefit.
For the parent receiving support, the practical point is that a W-2 or tax return may significantly understate the paying parent’s actual economic resources. Getting an accurate picture sometimes requires a forensic accountant.
Voluntary Underemployment and Imputed Income
A cap creates an obvious temptation. If the Texas formula only looks at the first $11,700 in monthly income, a parent might conclude that earning less will reduce the obligation. Courts have a well-established answer. When a parent voluntarily reduces their income or becomes underemployed without a legitimate reason, the court can impute income, meaning it calculates support based on what the parent could earn rather than what they actually earn.
The court considers education, training, work history, and the local job market to determine a realistic earning capacity. Health conditions and age factor in as well. A software executive who suddenly takes a part-time retail job will have a difficult time convincing a judge the career change was anything other than strategic. Evidence in these cases often involves vocational assessments and expert testimony about what someone with the parent’s qualifications typically earns.
Modifying an Order After a Cap Changes
Child support orders are not permanent. Either parent can request a modification when circumstances change substantially. Common triggers include a significant change in either parent’s income, a change in the child’s needs, or a shift in custody. Courts generally require the change to be material, not minor quarter-to-quarter fluctuations.
Some states also allow periodic review without a specific change in circumstances. In Texas, a parent can request a review if the existing order is at least three years old and the amount the guidelines would produce differs from the current order by at least 20% or $100.
For high-income parents, the cap itself can trigger a need for modification. When a state raises its cap, as Texas did in 2025, existing orders calculated under the old threshold may be subject to upward adjustment. A parent whose income drops below the cap threshold may seek a reduction. The modification process requires going back to court, so neither parent should start paying a different amount without a new order in place.