Florida does not set child support by discretion or by a flat percentage of one parent’s pay. It is a formula, written into section 61.30 of the Florida Statutes, and in most cases the number it produces is the number a judge orders. The calculator below runs that formula — the full guidelines schedule, the income shares, the child care and health add-ons, and the substantial time-sharing adjustment — and then shows you every step, so you can check the arithmetic rather than take it on trust.
Florida child support calculator
Built directly on the statutory guidelines in section 61.30, Florida Statutes, including the guidelines schedule and the substantial time-sharing adjustment. Everything runs in your browser; nothing you type is sent anywhere or stored.
Enter a gross monthly income for at least one parent to see an estimate.
Florida uses an income-shares model, not a percentage of one parent’s pay
Some states take a percentage of the paying parent’s income and stop there. Florida does something different. The guidelines start from a question about the child: what would these two parents, together, be spending on this child if they were still one household at this combined income? The Legislature answered that question in advance with a table — the guidelines schedule in section 61.30(6) — which maps combined monthly net income to a basic monthly obligation for one through six children.
Once that figure is fixed, the parents divide it in proportion to what each contributes to the combined net income. A parent who brings in 65 percent of the money is responsible for 65 percent of the support. Two consequences surprise people: the other parent’s income matters enormously, so a raise for either of you changes the number; and the obligation is a share of a fixed need rather than a tax on earning more, so it rises far more slowly than income does.
What counts as income, and what you can take off it
Section 61.30(2) casts a wide net over gross income: wages, bonuses, commissions, allowances, overtime and tips; self-employment income net of the ordinary and necessary expenses of producing it; disability benefits; workers’ compensation benefits and settlements; reemployment assistance; pensions and annuities; Social Security; alimony received; interest and dividends; rental income net of expenses; royalties, trusts and estates; reimbursed expenses that reduce living costs; and recurring gains from dealings in property. Public assistance is excluded.
If a parent is voluntarily unemployed or working below their capacity, the court can attribute income to them that they are not actually earning. The 2023 amendments tightened how that is done, and the details matter enough to have their own page — see imputation of income.
Section 61.30(3) then allows a closed list of deductions to get from gross to net: federal, state and local income tax adjusted for actual filing status and allowable dependents; FICA or self-employment tax; mandatory union dues; mandatory retirement payments; health insurance premiums for the parent, expressly excluding the children’s coverage; court-ordered support for other children that is actually being paid; and court-ordered spousal support. That list is exhaustive. Rent, car payments, credit cards and ordinary living expenses are not deductions, however real they are, and a great deal of wasted argument in child support hearings comes from parents assuming otherwise. Florida has no state income tax, which is why Florida net income sits closer to gross than it would in most states.
The schedule, and what happens above it
The schedule in section 61.30(6) runs from $800 of combined monthly net income up to $10,000, in $50 steps. Below $800 there is no table figure at all: section 61.30(6)(a) tells the court to set an amount case by case to establish the principle of payment, capped at 90 percent of the difference between the paying parent’s net income and the federal poverty guideline for a single person living alone. Above $10,000 the statute adds a percentage of the excess to the top of the table — 5 percent for one child, 7.5 for two, 9.5 for three, 11 for four, 12 for five and 12.5 for six. So a high income does not produce a proportionally high award; the marginal rate falls away sharply once you clear the table.
Child care and health insurance are added on top
Two categories of real expense sit outside the basic figure. Child care costs incurred because a parent is working, looking for work, or in education that will lead to work are added to the basic obligation under section 61.30(7), so long as they do not exceed the cost of quality care from a licensed source. The children’s health insurance premium, and any recurring uncovered medical, dental and prescription costs, are added under section 61.30(8). Both are then divided between the parents in the same income proportions as the basic obligation.
The part people miss is the credit. Whoever actually writes the cheque for daycare or the insurance premium has that payment deducted from their own support obligation. A paying parent who covers the children’s health insurance directly should see their monthly transfer fall by the other parent’s share of it, not by the whole premium. The calculator above asks who pays each item precisely because getting that wrong is one of the commonest ways an estimate ends up hundreds of dollars out.
The substantial time-sharing adjustment, in plain language
This is the part most calculators handle badly, and it is worth understanding properly. If each parent has the children for at least 20 percent of the year’s overnights — 73 nights or more — section 61.30(11)(b) requires the court to abandon the ordinary calculation and use what practitioners call the gross-up method.
Since 2023 this has been the normal case rather than the exception. Section 61.13(2)(c)1 now creates a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in a child’s best interests, which a parent must displace by a preponderance of the evidence. Most Florida parenting plans therefore start at or near 50/50, comfortably past the 73-night threshold, so any calculator that only knows the standard method will give the wrong answer in the majority of current cases.
The logic is that when a child genuinely lives in two homes, the total cost of raising them goes up: two sets of beds, two sets of clothes, two households buying groceries. So the statute inflates the basic obligation by 50 percent, divides the inflated figure between the parents by income share as usual, and then multiplies each parent’s share by the proportion of nights the child spends with the other parent. The idea is that you fund the other household for the time the child is actually in it. Subtract the smaller of those two figures from the larger, adjust for who is paying the child care and insurance, and the remainder is what changes hands.
Crossing 73 overnights is a genuine cliff edge, and it does not always move the number in the direction people expect. Where the paying parent earns less than about 60 percent of the combined net income, going from 72 to 73 overnights reduces what they pay. Where they earn more than that, it increases it — a very high earner who takes the children for exactly 20 percent of the year can end up paying more than they would have at 19 percent. That is not a flaw in the calculator; it is what the statute produces, and it is one of the reasons the overnight count in a parenting plan is negotiated as hard as it is. If time-sharing itself is in dispute, see time-sharing and child custody.
When a court departs from the guidelines figure
The guideline amount is presumptively correct, but it is not a ceiling or a floor. Section 61.30(1)(a) lets a judge order up to 5 percent more or less than the guideline figure after considering the child’s needs, age, station in life and standard of living, and the parents’ financial positions, without writing anything down. To go further than 5 percent the court must make a written finding explaining why the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.
Section 61.30(11)(a) lists the recognised grounds: extraordinary medical, psychological, educational or dental expenses; independent income of the child; seasonal variation in either parent’s income; the greater needs of older children; special needs associated with a child’s disability; the total assets available; the effect of the dependency exemption and the child care and earned income tax credits; a schedule giving one parent significant time but less than 20 percent of overnights; a parent’s refusal to be involved in the child’s activities; a guideline figure that would take more than 55 percent of a parent’s gross income; and any other adjustment needed to reach an equitable result.
Support and time-sharing are separate obligations
The most damaging misconception in this area is that the two are traded against each other — that a parent who is not being paid can withhold the children, or that a parent being denied their time can stop paying. Neither is true, and both are reliable ways to lose a judge’s sympathy. Time-sharing is decided on the child’s best interests; support is decided by a formula. Withholding either is a violation of a court order in its own right, exposing you to contempt, fees and, for unpaid support, licence suspension and income deduction. The answer to the other parent’s breach is enforcement, not self-help. See modification, contempt and enforcement.
When child support ends
Support runs to the child’s eighteenth birthday. It can run to 19 where the child is still in high school, dependent in fact, and performing in good faith with a reasonable expectation of graduating before turning 19 — that is section 61.13(1)(a)1.a and section 743.07(2). Orders entered since October 2010 must state the termination date on their face, and where there is more than one child they must also set out what the obligation becomes as each child ages out, so that support does not simply continue at the old rate. Separately, section 743.07(2) allows a court to require support beyond 18 for a dependent adult child whose mental or physical incapacity began before they reached majority. Support also ends on emancipation, marriage, enlistment or death.
Changing an existing order
An existing support order can be modified where there has been a substantial change in circumstances. Section 61.30(1)(b) puts a specific threshold on using the guidelines themselves to prove that change: the difference between the existing monthly obligation and the amount the current guidelines would produce must be at least 15 percent or $50, whichever is greater. Below that, the guidelines do not establish a substantial change. There is a separate and lower trigger where the Department of Revenue reviews an order, at 10 percent or $25.
Two practical points. Modification is generally retroactive only to the date the petition was filed, not to the date your circumstances changed, so filing promptly is worth real money. And a voluntary drop in income will usually be met with imputation rather than relief. Our child support lawyers can tell you quickly whether the threshold is met.
Using this estimate sensibly
A guidelines calculation is only as good as the income figures behind it, and income is where these cases are actually fought. Self-employment income, cash work, perks that reduce living expenses, a variable bonus, a parent who has just gone part-time — each turns a two-minute calculation into a contested question of fact. Note too that alimony paid or received changes both parents’ net income and so the support figure; our Florida alimony calculator covers that side of it.
Florida child support: common questions
Florida uses an income shares model set out in section 61.30, Florida Statutes. You add both parents' net monthly incomes together, look that combined figure up in the statutory guidelines schedule to get a basic monthly obligation for the number of children, add child care and the children's health insurance costs, then divide the total between the parents in proportion to each parent's share of the combined net income. If each parent has the children for at least 73 overnights a year, a separate gross up calculation applies instead.
It depends entirely on the two parents' combined net income and the overnight schedule, so there is no single figure. As a rough orientation, the statutory schedule sets the basic obligation for one child at 235 dollars a month on 1,000 dollars of combined monthly net income, 1,000 dollars a month at 5,000 dollars combined, and 1,437 dollars a month at 10,000 dollars combined. That basic figure is then split between the parents by income share, and the paying parent pays only their share of it.
It is the substantial time-sharing threshold in section 61.30(11)(b). Where each parent exercises at least 20 percent of the overnights in a year, which is 73 nights or more, the court must use the gross up method: the basic obligation is multiplied by 1.5, divided between the parents by income share, and each parent's share is then multiplied by the percentage of overnights the child spends with the other parent. The difference between those two figures, adjusted for child care and insurance, is what changes hands.
Usually, but not always, and it rarely goes to zero. A 50/50 schedule triggers the gross up calculation, which reduces the transfer where the paying parent has a moderate income advantage. But if one parent earns substantially more than the other, that parent will still pay, because the formula equalises the child's standard of living across two homes. Only where the parents' incomes are also close to equal does the payment approach nothing.
Gross income under section 61.30(2) includes wages, bonuses, commissions, overtime, tips, self-employment income net of business expenses, disability, workers' compensation, unemployment, pensions, Social Security, alimony received, interest, dividends and rental income. The only deductions allowed under section 61.30(3) are income tax, FICA or self-employment tax, mandatory union dues, mandatory retirement payments, health insurance for the parent but not the children, court-ordered support for other children actually paid, and court-ordered alimony. Rent, car payments and credit card debt are not deductible.
Yes. The guideline figure is a presumption, not a cap. A judge may order up to 5 percent above or below it without giving reasons, and may go further with a written finding that the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate. Section 61.30(11)(a) lists the recognised grounds, including extraordinary medical or educational expenses, a child's independent income, seasonal income, special needs, the tax treatment of the children, and a guideline figure that would take more than 55 percent of a parent's gross income.
At 18, or at 19 if the child is still in high school, dependent in fact, and performing in good faith with a reasonable expectation of graduating before turning 19. Support also ends earlier on emancipation, marriage, enlistment or death. A court can require support to continue past 18 for a dependent adult child whose mental or physical incapacity began before they turned 18, under section 743.07(2).
To use the guidelines themselves as proof of a substantial change in circumstances, the difference between your current monthly obligation and what the guidelines would produce today must be at least 15 percent or 50 dollars, whichever is greater. That is section 61.30(1)(b). A modification is normally retroactive only to the date the petition was filed, so there is a direct financial cost to waiting.
Want the number checked against your actual case?
A guidelines calculation is only as good as the income figures behind it, and income is where these cases are won and lost. Michael T. Mackhanlall has handled Florida family law matters for more than 15 years and can tell you quickly whether the figure above is the one a court would order. Book a consultation
This page and the calculator on it are general information about Florida law and are not legal advice, an opinion on your case, or a substitute for representation. Using the calculator does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Calculations apply the guidelines in section 61.30, Florida Statutes, together with sections 61.13 and 743.07 on the duration of support. Courts may deviate from the guidelines, and the figures a court uses come from sworn financial affidavits.