Subdivision (a) Example: If the obligor requests a reduction of support for one child of the first marriage on the basis that there is a new child of the second intact marriage, and the relevant monthly net incomes are $2,500 for the obligor, $500 for the former spouse, and $1,300 for the current spouse, the request for a reduction will be denied because the obligor’s basic support obligations total $1,152 ($576 for the first child and $576 for the second child) and are less than half of the obligor’s monthly net income.
Subdivision (b)(1) Example 1: The obligor is sued for support of an out-of-wedlock child. The obligor is already paying support for two children of the first marriage and has an intact second marriage with one child. The relevant monthly net incomes are $3,800 for the obligor, $1,100 for the former spouse, $0 for the current spouse, and $1,500 for the parent of the new child. The obligor’s basic child support obligations to each family are $1,259 for the two children of the first marriage, $875 for the one child of the second marriage, and $800 for the one child out of wedlock for a total of $2,934. Because the total of these obligations exceeds 50% of the obligor’s monthly net income of $3,800, the trier-of-fact may consider a proportional reduction of the orders.
Subdivision (b)(1) Example 2: The obligor is sued for support of three children of a second marriage. There is already an order in effect for two children of the first marriage. The relevant monthly net incomes are $2,500 for the obligor, $0 for the first spouse, and $500 for the second spouse. The obligor’s basic child support obligation to each family is $877 for the two children of the first marriage and $1,056 for the three children of the second marriage for a total support obligation of $1,933. Because the total obligation leaves the obligor with only $567 on which to live, the orders are too high as the obligor must be left with a self-support reserve of $1,255. However, reducing the order for three children while leaving the existing order intact would give preference to the first family, contrary to the rule. Therefore, both orders shall be reduced proportionally.
Subdivision (b)(1) Example 3: The obligor is sued by three obligees to establish orders for three children. The monthly net income for the obligor and for each obligee is $1,500. The trier-of-fact would determine that the obligor’s basic child support obligation for each child is $346 for a total of $1,038 for three children. It would be incorrect to determine the basic child support obligation for three children, in this case $1,272, and divide that amount among the three children. As the obligations exceed 50% of the obligor’s monthly net income, the support orders should be reduced proportionately consistent with subdivision (b) and ensure the obligor retains the self-support reserve of $1,255 consistent with Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-2(e).
Subdivision (c) Example 1: Assume that the obligor is paying $553 per month support for one child of the first marriage, plus an additional $200 per month for child care expenses. The obligor requests a reduction in this support obligation on the basis that there is one new child of the second intact marriage. The relevant incomes are $2,400 for the obligor and $0 for the former and current spouses. The obligor’s request for a reduction shall be denied because the total of the basic support obligations for both children is only $1,106 ($553 for each child) and does not exceed 50% of the obligor’s monthly net income. A reduction shall not be given on the basis that the obligor’s contribution to child care expenses for the first child results in a total basic support child obligation of $1,306, which exceeds 50% of the obligor’s monthly net income. The presumptive basic child support obligations for the two children still total $1,106 ($553 for each child). The trier-of-fact shall consider the deviation factors under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-5 and the parties’ respective contributions to additional expenses under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-6 in arriving at an appropriate total child support obligation for each child.
Subdivision (c) Example 2: Assume that the obligor is paying $221 per month support for one child of the first marriage. The obligor has one new child of the second intact marriage. The relevant incomes are $1,500 for the obligor and $0 for the former and current spouses. A reduction shall not be given based on the obligor’s new child because the presumptive basic child support obligations total $442 ($221 for each child) and this amount does not exceed 50% of the obligor’s monthly net income. Because, however, this amount leaves the obligor with only $1,058 per month, the trier-of-fact shall proportionally reduce the basic child support obligations so that the obligor retains $1,255 per month. The presumptive basic child support obligations total $245 ($122.50 for each child). The trier-of-fact shall consider the deviation factors under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-5 and the parties’ respective contributions to additional expenses under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.16-6 in arriving at an appropriate total child support obligation for each child.
Historical Commentary
The following commentary is historical in nature and represents statements of the Committee at the time of rulemaking:
Explanatory Comment—2005
Rule 1910.16-7 has been amended to reflect the updated schedule at Rule 1910.16-3 and the increase in the Self-Support Reserve (‘‘SSR’’), formerly the CAM, to $748 per month. This rule sets forth the calculation of child support obligations in the context of multiple families. Awards of spousal support in this context are addressed in Rule 1910.16-2(c)(2).
In determining whether the total support obligations exceed 50% of the obligor’s net income to warrant a proportionate reduction of the child support orders, subdivision (c) clarifies that the total consists only of the basic amounts of child support, as derived from the income shares formula in Rule 1910.16-4, and does not include additional expenses that may be added to these basic amounts under Rule 1910.16-6. As the first example illustrates, no reduction should be given if the basic support obligations do not exceed 50% of the obligor’s net monthly income even though his or her contribution to additional expenses may result in an overall obligation exceeding this percentage of income. As the second example illustrates, however, in low income cases it may be necessary to adjust the child support obligations proportionally even though they do not exceed 50% of the obligor’s net income. This is consistent with the goals of the SSR to ensure that the obligor retains sufficient income to maintain the incentive to work so that he or she can support all of the children.
Subdivision (c) also emphasizes that the initial amounts which are calculated for purposes of determining whether a proportional reduction is warranted are only presumptive amounts of child support. They are subject to upward or downward adjustment under Rules 1910.16-5 and 1910.16-6 relating to deviation and additional child-related expenses which are typically added to the basic obligation. This is intended only to emphasize that the establishment of appropriate support obligations for children of different families involves the same considerations as the establishment of a support obligation for a child or children of a single family.
Explanatory Comment—2010
Rule 1910.16-7 has been amended to reflect the updated schedule in Rule 1910.16-3 and the increase in the Self-Support Reserve to $867 per month, the 2008 federal poverty level for one person. The distribution priorities formerly in subdivision (d) have been moved to Rule 1910.17(d) to clarify that these priorities apply to all support orders, not just those involving multiple families.
Explanatory Comment—2013
Rule 1910.16-7 has been amended to reflect the updated schedule in Rule 1910.16-3 and the increase in the Self-Support Reserve to $931 per month, the 2012 federal poverty level for one person.
