The
presumptive maximum amount set forth herein was issued by the Administrative
Office of the Courts April 1, 2004 in accordance with the provisions of NRS
125B.070 (3) and is for the time period, July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005.
If the Parents GrossMonthly But Less Than The Presumptive Maximum Amount Income is at Least Amount the Parent May be Required to Pay per Month per Child Pursuant to
Paragraph (b) Subsection 1 is |
0 4,235 530 4,235 6,351 583 6,351 8,467 637 8,467 10,585 689 10,585 12,701 742 12,701 14,816 795 14,816 No Limit 849 |
If a parent’s gross
monthly income is equal to or greater than $14,816, the presumptive maximum
amount the parent may be required to pay pursuant to paragraph (b) of
subsection 1 is $849.
3. The presumptive maximum
amounts set forth in subsection 2 for the obligation for support must be
adjusted on July 1 of each year for the fiscal year beginning that day and
ending June 30 in a rounded dollar amount corresponding to the percentage of increase
or decrease in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) published by the United
States Department of Labor for the preceding calendar year. On April 1 of each
year, the Office of Court Administrator shall determine the amount of the
increase or decrease required by this subsection, establish the adjusted
amounts to take effect on July 1 of that year and notify each district court of
the adjusted amounts.
4. As used in this section,
“Office of Court Administrator” means the Office of Court
Administrator created pursuant to NRS 1.320.
There are factors that the courts can use to deviate from the statutory formula. In particular, Nevada Revised Statute 125B.080(9) states:
The court shall consider the
following factors when adjusting the amount of support of a child upon specific
findings of fact:
(a) The cost of health
insurance;
(b) The cost of child care;
(c) Any special educational
needs of the child;
(d) The age of the child;
(e) The legal responsibility
of the parents for the support of others;
(f) The value of services
contributed by either parent;
(g) Any public assistance
paid to support the child;
(h) Any expenses reasonably
related to the mother’s pregnancy and confinement;
(i) The cost of
transportation of the child to and from visitation if the custodial parent
moved with the child from the jurisdiction of the court which ordered the
support and the noncustodial parent remained;
(j) The amount of time the
child spends with each parent;
(k) Any other necessary
expenses for the benefit of the child; and
(l) The relative income of
both parents.
In the event Joint Physical
Custody is awarded to the parties, child support is decided differently. In Wesley v. Foster, 65
P.3d 251, 253, 119 Nev. , (2003), the Nevada Supreme Court
addressed the issue of Joint Physical Custody when there is a disparity of
income. The Court stated:
In this case, there is a
disparity in the gross monthly income of the two parents. Consistent with our
holding in Wright, Wesley's percentage of gross monthly income should
first be subtracted from Foster's percentage of gross monthly income. [FN11]
Then, after this offset is made, the cap should be applied. [FN12] "Of
course, the district court also has the option to adjust the amount of the
award where special circumstances exist." [FN13]
FN11. 18% of $1,417.00 =
$255.06. 18% of $5,417.00 = $975.06. Applying the offset, $975.06 minus $255.06
= $720.00, Foster's child support obligation prior to application of the cap.
FN12. The version of NRS
125B.070 in effect at the time of the petition for modification provided a $500
cap. Therefore, Foster's obligation for support payments to Wesley is $500 per
month.
FN13. Wright, 114
Nev. at 1369, 970 P.2d at 1072 (citing NRS 125B.080(9)).