atxguy said:
Sounds good, thanks! When you say the court is allowed more flexibility to deviate, what would be some examples?
Here are the reasons a deviation from the norm are allowed:
(b) In determining whether application of the guidelines
would be unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances, the court
shall consider evidence of all relevant factors, including:
(1) the age and needs of the child;
(2) the ability of the parents to contribute to the
support of the child;
(3) any financial resources available for the support
of the child;
(4) the amount of time of possession of and access to a
child;
(5) the amount of the obligee's net resources,
including the earning potential of the obligee if the actual income
of the obligee is significantly less than what the obligee could
earn because the obligee is intentionally unemployed or
underemployed and including an increase or decrease in the income
of the obligee or income that may be attributed to the property and
assets of the obligee;
(6) child care expenses incurred by either party in
order to maintain gainful employment;
(7) whether either party has the managing
conservatorship or actual physical custody of another child;
(8) the amount of alimony or spousal maintenance
actually and currently being paid or received by a party;
(9) the expenses for a son or daughter for education
beyond secondary school;
(10) whether the obligor or obligee has an automobile,
housing, or other benefits furnished by his or her employer,
another person, or a business entity;
(11) the amount of other deductions from the wage or
salary income and from other compensation for personal services of
the parties;
(12) provision for health care insurance and payment
of uninsured medical expenses;
(13) special or extraordinary educational, health
care, or other expenses of the parties or of the child;
(14) the cost of travel in order to exercise
possession of and access to a child;
(15) positive or negative cash flow from any real and
personal property and assets, including a business and investments;
(16) debts or debt service assumed by either party;
and
(17) any other reason consistent with the best
interest of the child, taking into consideration the circumstances
of the parents.
Although the court CAN consider these things, it doesn't happen vrey often. Realistically, it applied in situations like the NCP EARNS $40K a year BUT they have $10 million in the bank from winning the lottery and situations where each parents actual parenting time does not follow the SOP for Texas (every 1st, 3rd & 5th weekend, ect.) If an NCP actually gets a considerable amount of time ABOVE the SOP, the support can be lowered, if the NCP spents little to no time with the child, support can be higher then the norm.
