Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration Rule 32 Child Support Guidelines

ALABAMA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

Rule 32.

Child-support guidelines

Preface Relating to Scope. This rule, as amended effective January 1, 2009,

shall apply to all new actions filed or proceedings instituted on or after January 1,

2009. Any actions or proceedings instituted before January 1, 2009, shall be

governed by Rule 32 as it read before January 1, 2009.

(A) Child-support guidelines established. Guidelines for child support are hereby

established for use in any action to establish or modify child support, whether

temporary or permanent. There shall be a rebuttable presumption, in any judicial

or administrative proceeding for the establishment or modification of child

support, that the amount of the award that would result from the application of

these guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. A written

finding on the record indicating that the application of the guidelines would be

unjust or inappropriate shall be sufficient to rebut the presumption if the finding is

based upon:

(i) A fair, written agreement between the parties establishing a

different amount and stating the reasons therefor; or

(ii) A determination by the court, based upon evidence presented in

court and stating the reasons therefor, that application of the

guidelines would be manifestly unjust or inequitable.

(1) REASONS FOR DEVIATING FROM THE GUIDELINES. Reasons for deviating from

the guidelines may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Shared physical custody or visitation rights providing for periods of

physical custody or care of children by the obligor parent substantially in

excess of those customarily approved or ordered by the court;

(b) Extraordinary costs of transportation for purposes of visitation borne

substantially by one parent;

(c) Expenses of college education incurred prior to a child’s reaching the

age of majority;

(d) Assets of, or unearned income received by or on behalf of, a child or

children;

(e) The assumption under the Schedule of Basic Child-Support

Obligations that the custodial parent will claim the federal and state

income-tax exemptions for the children in his or her custody will not be

followed in the case;

(f) The actual child-case costs incurred on behalf of the children because

of the employment or job search of either parent exceeds the costs

allowed under subsection (B)(8) of this rule by twenty percent (20%) or

more; and

(g) Other facts or circumstances that the court finds contribute to the best

interest of the child or children for whom child support is being determined.

The existence of one or more of the reasons enumerated in this section does not require the court to deviate from the guidelines, but the reason or reasons may

be considered in deciding whether to deviate from the guidelines. The court may

deviate from the guidelines even if no reason enumerated in this section exists, if

evidence of other reasons justifying deviation is presented.

(2) STIPULATIONS. Stipulations presented to the court shall be reviewed by the

court before approval. No hearing shall be required; however, the court shall

use the guidelines in reviewing the adequacy of child-support orders

negotiated by the parties and shall review income statements that fully

disclose the financial status of the parties. The court, however, may accept

from the parties and/or their attorneys of record a Child-Support Guidelines

Notice of Compliance (Form CS-43) that indicates compliance with this rule

or, in the event the guidelines have not been followed, the reason for the

deviation therefrom.

(3) MODIFICATIONS. The guidelines shall be used by the parties as the basis

for periodic updates of child-support obligations.

(a) The provisions of any judgment respecting child support shall be

modified only as to installments accruing after the filing of the

petition for modification.

(b) A party seeking a modification of child support must plead and

prove that there has occurred a material change in circumstances

that is substantial and continuing since the last order of child

support.

(c) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that child support should

be modified when the difference between the existing child-support

award and the amount determined by application of these guidelines

varies more than ten percent (10%), unless the variation is due to

the fact that the existing child-support award resulted from a rebuttal

of the guidelines and there has been no change in the

circumstances that resulted in the rebuttal of the guidelines.

(d) The existence of the guidelines or periodic changes to the

guidelines in and of themselves do not constitute proof of a material

change in circumstances that is substantial and continuing.

(e) A trial court has discretion and authority to modify a child-support

obligation even when there is not a ten percent (10%) variation

between the current obligation and the guidelines when a petitioner

has proven a material change in circumstances that is substantial

and continuing. Likewise, a trial court has discretion to deny a

modification even when the ten percent (10%) variation is present,

based on a finding that the application of the guidelines in that case

would be manifestly unjust or inequitable.

(4) HEALTH-CARE NEEDS. All orders establishing or modifying child support

shall, at a minimum, provide for the children’s health-care needs through

health-insurance coverage, through cash medical support, or other means.

Normally, health insurance covering the children should be required if it is

available to either parent through his or her employment or pursuant to any

other group plan at a reasonable cost and is accessible to the children.

(B) Definitions.

(1) INCOME. For purposes of the guidelines established by this rule, “income”

means actual gross income of a parent, if the parent is employed to full

capacity, or the actual gross income the parent has the ability to earn if the

parent is unemployed or underemployed.

(2) GROSS INCOME.

(a) “Gross income” includes income from any source, and includes,

but is not limited to, salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses,

dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust income,

annuities, capital gains, Social Security benefits, workers’

compensation benefits, unemployment-insurance benefits, disabilityinsurance

benefits, gifts, prizes, and preexisting periodic alimony.

(b) “Gross income” does not include child support received for other

children or benefits received from means-tested public-assistance

programs, including, but not limited to, Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, and

general assistance.

(3) SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME.

(a) For income from self-employment, rent, royalties, proprietorship

of business, or joint ownership of partnership or closely held

corporation, “gross income” means gross receipts minus ordinary

and necessary expenses required to produce this income, as

allowed by the Internal Revenue Service, with the exceptions noted

in subsection (B)(3)(b).

(b) “Ordinary and necessary expenses” does not include amounts

allowable by the Internal Revenue Service for the accelerated

component of depreciation expenses, investment tax credits, or any

other business expenses determined by the court to be

inappropriate for determining gross income for purposes of

calculating child support.

(4) OTHER INCOME. Expense reimbursements or in-kind payments received by

a parent in the course of employment, self-employment, or operation of a

business shall be counted as income if they are significant and reduce

personal-living expenses.

(5) UNEMPLOYMENT; UNDEREMPLOYMENT. If the court finds that either parent is

voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, it shall estimate the income that

parent would otherwise have and shall impute to that parent that income; the

court shall calculate child support based on that parent’s imputed income. In

determining the amount of income to be imputed to a parent who is

unemployed or underemployed, the court should determine the employment

potential and probable earning level of that parent, based on that parent’s

recent work history, education, and occupational qualifications, and on the

prevailing job opportunities and earning levels in the community. The court

may take into account the presence of a young or physically or mentally

disabled child necessitating the parent’s need to stay in the home and

therefore the inability to work.

(6) PREEXISTING CHILD-SUPPORT OBLIGATION. The amount of child support

actually being paid by a parent pursuant to an order for child support of other

children shall be deducted from that parent’s “gross income.” If a parent is

legally responsible for and is actually providing child support for other

children, but not pursuant to an order of child support, a deduction for an

“imputed preexisting child-support obligation” may be made from that parent’s

gross income. The imputed preexisting child-support obligation shall be that

amount specified in the schedule of basic child-support obligations based on

that parent’s unadjusted gross income and the number of other children for

whom that parent is legally responsible. “Other children” means children who

are not the subject of the particular child-support determination being made. If

the proceeding is one to modify an existing award of child support, no

deduction should be made for other children born or adopted after the initial

award of child support was entered, except for child support paid pursuant to

another order of child support.

(7) HEALTH-INSURANCE COVERAGE/CASH MEDICAL SUPPORT.

(a) Medical support in the form of health-insurance coverage and/or cash

medical support shall be ordered provided that health-insurance coverage

is available to either parent at a reasonable cost and/or cash medical

support is considered reasonable in cost. The health-insurance coverage

must be “accessible” to the children, as that term is defined in subsection

(c).

(b) Cash medical support may be ordered in addition to health-insurance

coverage. Cash medical support does not have to be a stand-alone

amount. Cash medical support for uninsured medical expenses can be

allocated between the parents.

(c) Definitions.

(1) Cash Medical Support. Cash medical support is an amount ordered

to be paid toward the cost of health insurance provided by a public

entity or by another parent through employment or otherwise, or for

other medical costs not covered by insurance.

(2) Health Insurance. Health insurance includes the fee for service,

health-maintenance organization, preferred-provider organization, and

other types of coverage that is available to either parent, under which

medical services could be provided to the dependent children.

(3) Reasonable Cost. Cash medical support or the cost of private

health insurance is considered reasonable in cost if the cost to the

parent responsible for providing medical support does not exceed 10%

of his or her gross income. For purposes of applying the 10% standard,

the cost is the cost of adding the child or children to existing coverage

or the difference between self-only and family coverage, whichever is

greater.

(4) Accessible. Health-insurance coverage shall be deemed

“accessible” if ordinary medical care is available to the children within a

100-mile radius of their residence.

(d) The actual cost of a premium to provide health-insurance benefits for

the children shall be added to the “basic child-support obligation” and shall

be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross

income in the percentages indicated on the Child-Support Guidelines form

(Form CS-42).

(e) The amount to be added to the “basic child-support obligation” and

inserted in Line 6 (“Health-Insurance Costs”) of the Child-Support

Guidelines form (Form CS-42) shall be the pro rata portion of the medicalinsurance

premium attributable to the child or children who are the subject

of the support order, which shall be calculated by dividing the total

medical-insurance premium actually paid by, or on behalf of, the parent

ordered to provide the coverage by the total number of persons (adult

and/or children) covered and then multiplying the result by the number of

children who are the subject of the support order.

(f) After the “total child-support obligation” is calculated and divided

between the parents in proportion to their “monthly adjusted gross

income,” the amount added pursuant to subsection (e) shall be deducted

from the obligor’s share of the total child-support obligation, provided the

obligor actually pays the premium. If the obligee is actually paying the

premium, no further adjustment is necessary.

(g) If, at any time while a child-support order providing for an insurance

adjustment is in effect, the insurance coverage is allowed to lapse, is

terminated, or otherwise no longer covers the children for whose benefit

the order was issued, the court (i) may find the amount deducted from the

obligor’s child-support obligation therefor to be an arrearage in the

obligor’s total child-support obligation; (ii) may find the obligor liable for

medical expenses that would otherwise have been covered under the

insurance; and/or (iii) may enter such other order as it shall deem

appropriate.

(8) CHILD-CARE COSTS. Child-care costs, incurred on behalf of the children

because of employment or job search of either parent, shall be added to the

“basic child-support obligation.” Child-care costs shall not exceed the amount

required to provide care from a licensed source for the children, based on a

schedule of guidelines developed by the Alabama Department of Human

Resources. Before the Alabama Department of Human Resources

implements any revision to the schedule of child-care-cost guidelines, it shall

provide the administrative director of courts (“the ADC”) a copy of the revised

schedule. The ADC shall, as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter,

disseminate the revised schedule to all circuit and district court judges and

clerks and the Family Law Section of the Alabama State Bar. The clerk shall

maintain the current schedule in his or her office, shall make it available for

review, and shall provide copies of it on request, at the customary cost for

copies of documents.

(9) Credit for Third-Party Payment to Child.

(i) Social Security retirement, survivor’s, or disability insurance

benefits, veteran’s benefits, railroad retirement, or any other thirdparty

payments paid for the benefit of the children based on the

support obligor’s earnings record or other eligibility requirement

attributable to the support obligor shall be credited against that

parent’s support obligation, for so long as that support obligation is

being received by the support payee, as follows:

(1) Determine the total child-support obligation; then

(2) Determine the monthly benefit amount that is attributable to

the obligor and that the support recipient receives for the

children and then subtract that amount from the total childsupport

obligation.

(a) If the children’s obligor-based benefit exceeds the total

support amount, then no additional support amount should

be ordered.

(b) If the children’s obligor-based benefits are less than the

obligor’s total support amount, then the difference between

the benefits received for the children and the total support

amount becomes the ordered child-support obligation.

(ii) The following payments made for the benefit of a child by a third

party shall not be credited toward the support obligor’s child-support

obligation:

(1) Payments that are not based on the support obligor’s

earnings record or other eligibility requirement attributable to the

support obligor;

(2) Any payments resulting from the disability of the child;

(3) Any payment received in excess of the amount of child

support owed to the child;

(4) Any payment received by the child shall not be credited

against arrearages that accrued before the date the obligor was

deemed eligible to receive the third-party payment;

(5) Social Security income benefits paid to the child;

(6) Adoption subsidy paid to adoptive parents of a special-needs

child pursuant to ‘ 26-10-20 et seq., Code of Alabama 1975.

(10) SPLIT CUSTODY. In those situations where each parent has primary

physical custody of one or more children, child support shall be computed in

the following manner:

(a) Compute the child support the father would owe to the mother

for the children in her custody as if they were the only children of

the two parties; then

(b) Compute the child support the mother would owe to the father

for the children in his custody as if they were the only children of

the two parties; then

(c) Subtract the lesser child-support obligation from the greater.

The parent who owes the greater obligation should be ordered to

pay the difference in child support to the other parent, unless the

court determines, pursuant to other provisions of this rule, that it

should deviate from the guidelines.

(C) Determination of Recommended Child-Support Obligation.

(1) BASIC CHILD-SUPPORT OBLIGATION. The basic child-support obligation shall

be determined by using the schedule of basic child-support obligations. The

category entitled “combined adjusted gross income” in the schedule means

the combined monthly adjusted gross incomes of both parents. “Adjusted

gross income” means gross income less preexisting child-support obligations,

less preexisting periodic alimony actually paid by a parent to a former spouse.

For combined adjusted gross-income amounts falling between amounts

shown in the schedule, the lower value shall be used if the combined adjusted

gross income falls less than halfway between the amounts shown in the

schedule. Where the combined adjusted gross income falls halfway or more

than halfway between two amounts, the higher value shall be used. The

category entitled “number of children due support” in the schedule means

children for whom the parents share joint legal responsibility and for whom

child support is being sought. The court may use its discretion in determining

child support in circumstances where combined adjusted gross income is

below the lowermost levels or exceeds the uppermost levels of the schedule.

(2) COMPUTATION OF CHILD SUPPORT. A total child-support obligation is

determined by adding the basic child-support obligation, work-related childcare

costs, and health-insurance costs. The total child-support obligation shall

be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes.

The obligation of each parent is computed by multiplying the total child-

support obligation by each parent’s percentage share of their combined

adjusted gross income. The custodial parent shall be presumed to spend his

or her share directly on the child.

(3) ROUNDING. All dollar amounts used in child-support calculations under this

rule, including the recommended child-support order, shall be rounded to the

nearest dollar, and all percentages shall be rounded to the nearest one

percent.

(4) ADDITIONAL AWARDS FOR CHILD SUPPORT. In addition to the recommended

child-support order, the court may make additional awards for extraordinary

medical, dental, and educational expenses if (i) the parties have in writing

agreed to these awards or (ii) the court, upon reviewing the evidence,

determines that these awards are in the best interest of the children and

states its reasons for making these additional awards.

(D) Schedule of basic child-support obligations. A schedule of basic child-support

obligations appears as an appendix to this Rule 32.

(E) Standardized child-support guidelines form, child-support-obligation income

statement/affidavit form, and child-support guidelines notice of compliance form.

A standardized Child-Support Guidelines form (Form CS-42 as appended to this

rule) and a Child-Support-Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit form (Form CS41

as appended to this rule) shall be filed in each action to establish or modify

child-support obligations and shall be of record and shall be deemed to be

incorporated by reference in the court’s child-support order. In conformance to

section (A)(2) of this rule, in stipulated cases the court may accept the filing of a

Child-Support Guidelines Notice of Compliance form (Form CS-43 as appended

to this rule). The form, content, and numbering schemes of the Child-Support

Guidelines form, the Child-Support-Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit form,

and the Child-Support Guidelines Notice of Compliance form shall be prescribed

by the ADC.

(F) Income statements. Income statements of the parents shall be verified with

documentation of both current and past earnings. Suitable documentation of

current earnings includes pay stubs, employer statements, or receipts and

expenses if self-employed. Documentation of current earnings shall be

supplemented with copies of the most recent tax return to provide verification of

earnings over a longer period or shall be supplemented with other documentation

as the court directs. Intentional falsification of information presented on the ChildSupport-Obligation

Income Statement/Affidavit form shall be deemed contempt of

court. Documentation of earnings used in preparing the Child-Support-Obligation

Income Statement/Affidavit form shall be maintained by the parties and made

available as directed by the court.

(G) Review of guidelines. The Advisory Committee on Child-Support Guidelines

and Enforcement (hereinafter “the Committee”), appointed by the Supreme

Court, shall, at least once every four years, review the child-support guidelines

and the schedule of basic child-support obligations to ensure that their

application results in appropriate child-support determinations. Any

recommendations concerning the child-support guidelines and/or the schedule of

basic child-support obligations shall be reduced to writing and sent by the

chairman of the Committee to the clerk of the Supreme Court for review by the

Supreme Court. Any proposed changes to the child-support guidelines and/or the

schedule of basic child-support obligations that are approved by the Supreme

Court shall be sent by the clerk of the Supreme Court to the ADC for distribution

to the trial courts.

[Amended 9-28-87, eff. 10-1-87; Amended 8-29-89, eff. 10-9-89; Amended 8-24-

93, eff. 10-4-93; Amended 11-19-2008; eff. 1-1-2009; Amended 2-25-2009; eff.

3-1-2009; Amended 2-11-2015, eff. 4-1-2015; Amended 3-2-2018, eff 6-1-2018;

Comment to Rule 32(B)(9) amended 5-1-2018, eff. 6-1-2018.]

Comment

(As amended to conform to amendments effective October 4, 1993)

Rule 32 establishes guidelines as a rebuttable presumption for the

ordering of child support awards. These guidelines were adopted in response to

requirements set forth in the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984

(P.L. 98-378) and the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485). The guidelines

will provide an adequate standard support for children, subject to the ability of

their parents to pay, and will make awards more equitable by ensuring more

consistent treatment of persons in similar circumstances.

These guidelines are based on the income shares model developed by

the National Center for State Courts and are founded on the premise that

children should not be penalized as a result of the dissolution of the family unit

but should continue to receive the same level of support that would have been

available to them had the family unit remained intact. Under the guidelines,

attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant will be required to submit a Child Support

Guidelines form and Child Support Obligation Income Statement/Affidavit form in

each action to establish or modify child support. The Child Support Guidelines

form will set forth the combined income available to the family unit, the basic

child support obligation as determined from the Schedule of Basic Child Support

Obligations (Appendix to Rule 32), and adjustments to the basic obligation for

work-related child care expenses and health insurance premiums. A portion of

the adjusted total child support obligation is then ascribed to each parent based

on his/her percentage share of the combined family income. The Child Support

Guidelines form sets forth the recommended child support obligation for the

noncustodial parent, which includes an adjustment for the cost of the health

insurance premium if such a premium is paid by the noncustodial parent. The

guidelines assume that the custodial parent will directly provide his/her

proportionate share of support to the children. In addition to the recommended

child support obligation, the court may make additional awards for extraordinary

medical, dental, and educational expenses if the court finds such awards to be in

the children’s best interest or if the parents have agreed to such awards.

The Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations was developed through

research sponsored by the National Center for State Courts and is based on

extensive economic research on the cost of supporting children at various

income levels. This schedule is based on gross income and has been adjusted

for Alabama’s income distribution relative to the U.S. income distribution. It also

incorporates the 1987 federal income tax provisions as well as the withholding

schedule for Alabama state income tax.

Other assumptions incorporated in the Schedule of Basic Child Support

Obligations include:

(1) Tax Exemptions. The Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations

assumes that the custodial parent will take the federal and state income tax

exemptions for the children in his or her custody;

(2) Health Care Costs. In respect to health care costs, the Schedule of

Basic Child Support Obligations assumes unreimbursed medical costs of $200

per family of four per year. These assumed costs include medical expenses not

covered or reimbursed by health insurance or Medicaid or Medicare; and

(3) Visitation. The Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations is

premised on the assumption that the noncustodial parent will exercise customary

visitation rights, including summer visitation. Any abatement of child support

because of extraordinary visitation should be based on visitation in excess of

customary visitation.

The schedule of basic child support obligations includes combined gross

incomes ranging from $550 to $10,000 a month. Rule 32(C)(1) provides that the

court may use its discretion in determining child support where the combined

adjusted gross income is below the lowermost levels or above the uppermost

levels of the schedule. To further the consistency of awards, a court may wish to

issue an order establishing minimum child support obligations for combined

adjusted gross incomes of less than $550. Where the combined adjusted gross

income exceeds the uppermost limit of the schedule, the amount of child support

should not be extrapolated from the figures given in the schedule, but should be

left to the discretion of the court.

Rule 32(B)(8) provides an adjustment for work-related child care costs,

provided such costs do not exceed those on the schedule of guidelines for

licensed child care costs published by the Alabama Department of Human

Resources (DHR). The rule requires that copies of the DHR schedule of

guidelines for child care costs be available through the office of the clerk or

register of each court where child support actions are filed. Copies of the

schedule of guidelines for child care costs should also be available in the county

offices of the Department of Human Resources.

The Alabama child support guidelines do not specifically address the

problem of establishing a support order in joint legal custody situations. Such a

situation may be considered by the court as a reason for deviating from the

guidelines in appropriate situations, particularly if physical custody is jointly

shared by the parents. Shared physical custody, regardless of “legal custodial

arrangements,” is an appropriate reason for deviation, Section (A)(1)(a). “Shared

physical custody” refers to that situation where the physical placement is shared

by the parents in such a manner as to assure the child frequent and continuing

contact and time with both parents. Because of the infinite possibilities that exist

in terms of time spent with each parent and other considerations associated with

such custody, a determination of support is to be made on a case-by-case basis

and is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, to be based on findings made

at or after trial or upon a fair written agreement of the parties. When a shared

physical custody situation results in a support award that deviates from the award

that would result from application of the guidelines, the trial court’s order, or the

written agreement of the parties, must specify and explain the reason for the

deviation.

The guidelines also do not address the problem of subsequent children or

families. While no deduction may be made for children born or adopted after an

initial award of support, unless made pursuant to another order of support or as

otherwise provided in this rule, a court may consider evidence of support

provided by a party for after-born or adopted children offered in an attempt to

rebut the guidelines’ presumptions. See Loggins v. Houk, 595 So.2d 488

(Ala.Civ.App.1991).

The Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations assumes that a family of

four will have approximately $200 in unreimbursed medical expenses each year.

In providing for the payment of deductibles and/or other noncovered medical

expenses by the parties, it should be assumed that those expenses are in excess

of this amount. Courts and parties may wish to consider whether noncovered

medical and/or dental expenses should be allocated in the same percentages as

the health insurance premiums are allocated pursuant to this rule and as entered

on the Child Support Guidelines form (Form CS-42).

When provisions for payment of a health insurance premium are made as

provided in Rule 32, the court, or the parties drafting an agreement, should also

consider requiring proof that the children have been enrolled in the health

insurance plan and proof of the actual cost of dependent coverage. The court

should, in its order of child support, require the parent providing dependent

insurance coverage to submit annually proof of continued coverage to the other

parent, the court, or the designated child support enforcement agency, and

should further require provision of an identification card or other evidence of

insurance sufficient for the children to be afforded benefits of such insurance

coverage by service providers.

The Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines

and Enforcement, which assisted in drafting this rule, has recommended that

child support obligations be determined before the court considers spousal

support or other obligations.

Comment to Amendments

Effective January 1, 2009

Rule 32 was amended effective January 1, 2009, to address certain

issues and to make technical changes.

The first paragraph of this rule, entitled, “Preface Relating to Scope,”

provides that the amended rule is effective January 1, 2009, and will apply to all

new actions filed or proceedings instituted on or after that date. Any actions or

proceedings instituted before January 1, 2009, will be governed by Rule 32 as it

read before that date.

Rule 32(A)(2), entitled “Stipulations,” was amended to delete the last

sentence, which is also found in Rule 32(E).

Rule 32(A)(3), entitled “Modifications,” was amended by adding

subsection (b), which emphasizes that under current Alabama case law a party

seeking a modification of child support must plead and prove that a material

change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the last order of child

support that is substantial and continuing.

Former subsection (b) of Rule 32(A)(3) was moved to subsection (c).

Subsections (d) and (e) were added to Rule 32 (A)(3). Subsection (d) clarifies

that the mere existence of the guidelines or any periodic changes to the

guidelines, including these latest changes, do not, in and of themselves,

constitute proof of a material change in circumstances that is substantial and

continuing to warrant the filing of a modification of child support. Subsection

(e) restates that a trial court may modify a child-support obligation even when

there is not a 10 percent variation between the current obligation and the

guidelines when a petitioner has proven a material change in circumstances that

is substantial and continuing, or it may deny a modification even when the 10

percent variation exists based on a finding that the application of the guidelines in

that case would be manifestly unjust or inequitable.

In Rule 32(B)(2)(b), the definition of “Gross Income” was amended to

change the term “Aid to Families with Dependent Children,” which is no longer

used, to “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.”

The Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Child-Support Guidelines

and Enforcement considered the issue of allowing a deduction beyond what is

provided in Rule 32(B)(6) for a parent paying child support if that parent has

other children who are not the subject of the particular child-support

determination being made. After many discussions, the Advisory Committee

decided not to recommend an amendment to Rule 32(B)(6), which allows a

parent paying child support to deduct from that parent’s gross income the amount

of child support actually being paid by the person pursuant to a child-support

order for other children or an imputed amount if the parent is legally responsible

for and is actually providing child support for other children not covered by a

child-support order.

The Advisory Committee also decided not to recommend an amendment

to the guidelines to address the issue of subsequent children or families.

Although no deduction may be made for children born or adopted after an initial

award of support unless the deduction is made pursuant to another order of

support or as otherwise provided in this rule, a court may consider evidence of

support provided by a party for after-born or adopted children offered in an

attempt to rebut the presumptions in the guidelines. See Loggins v. Houk, 595

So. 2d 488 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). A decision regarding an issue raised

concerning subsequent children or families is to be made on a case-by-case

basis and is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, to be based on findings

made at or after trial or upon a fair written agreement of the parties. If a

deduction for subsequent children or families results in a support award that

deviates from the award that would result from application of the guidelines, the

trial court’s order, or the written agreement of the parties, must specify and

explain the reason for the deviation.

In Rule 32(B)(8), the definition of “Child-Care Costs” was amended to

delete reference to registers receiving copies of the Department of Human

Resources’ schedule of child-care-cost guidelines because there are no longer

any registers.

Rule 32(G) was amended to provide that the Advisory Committee on

Child-Support Guidelines and Enforcement appointed by the Supreme Court,

instead of the administrative director of courts, shall, at least once every four

years, review the child-support guidelines and the schedule of basic child-support

obligations to ensure that their application results in appropriate child-support

determinations. Language was also added to provide that any recommendations

concerning the child-support guidelines and/or the schedule of basic childsupport

obligations shall be reduced to writing and sent by the chairman of the

Committee to the clerk of the Supreme Court for review by the Supreme Court.

Any proposed changes to the child-support guidelines and/or the schedule of

basic child-support obligations that are approved by the Supreme Court shall be

sent by the clerk of the Supreme Court to the administrative director of courts for

distribution to the trial courts.

The original schedule of basic child-support obligations was developed

through research sponsored by the National Center for State Courts. The

revised schedule of basic child-support obligations was updated and is based on

the latest extensive economic research on the cost of supporting children at

various income levels. Specifically, the revised schedule of basic child-support

obligations is based on estimates of child-rearing expenditures that were

developed applying the Rothbarth methodology to 1998-2004 expenditures data

and updated to 2007 price levels. The revised schedule of basic child-support

obligations is also based on gross income and has been adjusted for Alabama’s

income distribution relative to the income distribution for the United States. It also

incorporates the 2007 federal and State of Alabama personal income-tax

withholding formulas.

Other assumptions incorporated in the revised schedule of basic childsupport

obligations include:

(1) Tax exemptions. The schedule of basic child-support obligations

assumes that the custodial parent will take the federal and state income-tax

exemptions for the children in his or her custody;

(2) Health-care costs. In respect to health-care costs, the schedule of

basic child-support obligations assumes unreimbursed medical costs of $250 per

child per year. These assumed costs include medical expenses not covered or

reimbursed by health insurance, Medicaid, or All Kids, or insurance from another

public entity up to $250 per child per year;

(3) Visitation. The schedule of basic child-support obligations is premised

on the assumption that the noncustodial parent will exercise customary visitation

rights, including summer visitation. Any abatement of child support because of

extraordinary visitation should be based on visitation in excess of customary

visitation; and

(4) Self-support reserve. The schedule of basic child-support obligations

incorporates a self-support reserve of $851 per month. It is based on the 2007

federal poverty guidelines for one person but is also realigned to consider

Alabama incomes in the same manner as the revised schedule. The adjustment

is incorporated into the schedule for combined gross incomes below: $1,100 for

one child; $1,350 for two children; $1,550 for three children; $1,700 for four

children; $1,900 for five children; and $2,100 for six children. The evidence on

child-rearing expenditures indicates a higher amount is expended on children

below these income levels than what is shown in the schedule of basic childsupport

obligations.

The entire revised schedule of basic child-support obligations includes

combined gross incomes ranging from $0 to $20,000 a month. Rule 32(C)(1)

provides that the court may use its discretion in determining child support when

the combined adjusted gross income is below the lowermost levels or above the

uppermost levels of the schedule. To further the consistency of awards, a court

may wish to issue an order establishing minimum child-support obligations for

combined adjusted gross incomes of less than $800. When the combined

adjusted gross income exceeds the uppermost limit of the schedule, the amount

of child support should not be extrapolated from the figures given in the

schedule, but should be left to the discretion of the court.

The revised schedule of basic child-support obligations assumes that each

child will have $250 in unreimbursed medical expenses each year up to $750 for

three children per year and $75 per each additional child thereafter. This includes

ordinary medical expenditures such as over-the-counter medicines, Band-Aids,

and co-pays for well visits. In providing for the payment of deductibles and/or

other noncovered medical expenses by the parties, it should be assumed that

those expenses are in excess of this amount.

Comment to Amendments

Effective March 1, 2009

Rule 32(A)(4), “Health-Care Needs,” was amended to state that healthinsurance

coverage may be provided through cash medical support and that the

coverage must be accessible to the children. These provisions are required in

state child-support guidelines pursuant to federal medical-support regulations.

See 45 C.F.R. § 302.56(c)(3).

The title to Rule 32(B)(7) was changed from “Health-Insurance Premiums”

to “Health-Insurance Coverage/Cash Medical Support” to more accurately

describe the rule once the new provisions have been added.

Subsection (a) was added to ensure that the State’s child-support

guidelines are in compliance with 45 C.F.R. § 302.56(c)(3). The provisions that

the health insurance be available to a parent at reasonable cost and that

coverage be accessible to the children were included pursuant to 45 C.F.R. §

303.31(b)(1).

Subsection (b) was added to provide that cash medical support may be

ordered in addition to health-insurance coverage, that cash medical support does

not have to be a stand-alone amount, and that cash medical support can be

allocated between the parents for responsibility for uninsured medical expenses.

Subsection (c) was added to define certain terms. The definition of “cash

medical support” tracks the language of 45 C.F.R. § 303.31(a)(1). The definition

of “health insurance” tracks the language of 45 C.F.R. § 303.31(a)(2). The

definition of “reasonable cost” tracks the language of 45 C.F.R. § 303.31(a)(3).

The Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Child-Support Guidelines and

Enforcement voted to provide that cash medical support or the cost of private

health insurance is considered reasonable if the cost to the parent responsible

for providing medical support does not exceed 10% of his or her gross income.

For purposes of applying the 10% standard, the cost is the greater of the cost of

adding the child to existing coverage or the difference between self-only and

family coverage. A definition of “accessible” was added to comply with 45 C.F.R.

§ 303.31(b)(1). The federal government allows states to define “accessible.”

The Advisory Committee chose to define this term as health-insurance coverage

for ordinary medical care to children available to the children within a 100-mile

radius of their residence.

Former subsection (a) was renumbered as subsection (d).

Former subsections (b), (c), and (d) were renumbered subsections (e), (f),

and (g), respectively. Only technical changes were made to these subsections.

Comment to Amendments Effective April 1, 2015

Rule 32 was amended effective April 1, 2015, to add two additional

specific reasons for the court to deviate from the child-support guidelines and to

provide a more equitable manner of treating the inclusion of health-insurance

premiums in the calculation of child support.

A new subsection (A)(1)(e) was added to specifically permit the court to

deviate from the guidelines if the custodial parent is not claiming the federal and

state income-tax exemptions for the child or children, as is assumed under the

Schedule of Basic Child-Support Obligations.

Subsection (A)(1)(f) was added to specifically permit the court to deviate

from the guidelines in the instances in which the actual child-care costs exceed

the costs allowed under subsection (B)(8) of the rule by at least 20 percent

(20%). This addition will allow the court to consider all the factors surrounding the

child-care arrangements in each individual case, including the acceleration in

child-care costs. Also, this change furthers the policy of encouraging both

parents to seek and maintain employment to help support their child.

Former subsection (A)(1)(e) was redesignated as subsection (A)(1)(g) in

light of the additions of the two new subsections.

Subsection (B)(7)(e) was amended to provide a more equitable

determination of the actual cost of the health-insurance premiums for a child in

the calculation of child support. The former rule required the inclusion of the

actual amount of the total insurance premium for family/dependent coverage,

regardless of which children were included under that coverage. That method of

calculation was based on outdated modes of dependent health-insurance

coverage and had the potential to lead to inequitable results, as demonstrated in

Hein v. Fuller, 93 So. 3d 961 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). The inclusion of the pro rata

portion of the medical-insurance premium attributable to a child who is the

subject of the support order will more fairly represent the true cost of medical

coverage for the child. The addition of the language that allows the court to base

the calculations on the premium paid “by, or on behalf of, the parent” reflects the

existing practice of stepparents’ providing medical insurance for their stepchildren

under their dependent-coverage policies and fosters the goal of promoting health

coverage for children.

Comment to Adoption of Rule 32(B)(9)

Effective June 1, 2018

A new subdivision (9) was added to subsection (B) and what was

subdivision (9) was renumbered subdivision (10). The new subdivision (9) allows

the obligor to receive credit against child-support obligations for certain thirdparty

payments made directly to the payee. Subsection (B)(9)(i) is based on

Section 3.07 (Social Security Benefit Credit) of the 2013 Michigan Child Support

Formula Manual (effective January 1, 2013), which provides credits for certain

benefits provided by government insurance programs, with the addition of credit

for other third-party payments such as railroad retirement benefits.

Subsection (B)(9)(i) is consistent with current Alabama caselaw. In

Goldman v. Goldman, 197 So. 3d 487 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015), the Alabama Court

of Civil Appeals held that the veteran’s disability benefits of the former husband

were to be considered income for purpose of calculating his child-support

obligation. A noncustodial parent cannot be required to pay child support when

Social Security payments received by a child based on a parent’s disability

exceeds the guideline amounts. Self v. Self, 685 So. 2d 732 (Ala. Civ. App.

1996). The obligor is also entitled to a credit against his or her obligation when a

child receives benefits based on the obligor’s retirement benefits. Adams v.

Adams, 107 So. 3d 194 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). Notwithstanding, if the third-party

payment to the child is stopped for any reason, the child support owed by the

obligor remains the amount of the existing child-support order. For example, if a

child is receiving a third-party payment from Social Security that terminates when

the child reaches the age of 18, the obligation of the obligor to pay the court-

ordered child support will remain in effect until the child reaches the age of

majority.

The exclusions of credit enumerated in subsection (B)(9)(ii) reflect current

Alabama law. Alabama has consistently held that credit is not allowed for a

benefit a child receives based on the work history of someone other than the

obligor. See Hebert v. Stephenson, 574 So. 2d 835 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). See

also the court’s discussion in Hebert regarding child-support credit based on the

child’s own disability. 574 So. 2d at 837. Also, the exclusion of credit for Social

Security income benefits in subsection (B)(9)(ii)(5) is consistent with Lightel v.

Myers, 791 So. 2d 955 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000), holding that a parent should not get

credit for the Social Security income benefits payable to the child as a

“supplement to income” for the child based on the child’s disability, as was

clarified by the court in Adams v. Adams, 107 So. 3d 194 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012),

which held that credit could be given to a parent whose child received Social

Security retirement benefits based on the parent’s work history and, thus, are a

“substitute income source.” Likewise, the exclusion of credit for adoption-subsidy

pay in subsection (B)(9)(ii)(6) is consistent with current law because the adoption

subsidy is not a “substitute income source”; rather, it is supplemental to the

adoptive parents’ income. W.R. v. C.R., 75 So. 3d 159 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).

Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Rule 32,

effective January 1, 2009, and adopting the Comment to Amendments Effective

January 1, 2009, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains

Alabama cases from 994 So. 2d.

Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Rule 32(A)(4)

and Rule 32(B)(7), effective March 1, 2009, and adopting the Comment to

Amendments Effective March 1, 2009, is published in that volume of Alabama

Reporter that contains Alabama cases from 999 So. 3d.

Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Rule 32(A)(1)

and Rule 32(B)(7)(e), effective April 1, 2015, and adopting the Comment to

Amendments Effective April 1, 2015, is published in that volume of Alabama

Reporter that contains Alabama cases from 158 So. 3d.

Note from the reporter of decisions: The order adopting Rule 32(B)(9)

and renumbering what was Rule 32(B)(9) as Rule 32(B)(10) effective June 1,

2018, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama

cases from ___ So. 3d.

Note from the reporter of decisions: The order adopting the Comment

to the adoption of Rule 32(B)(9), effective June 1, 2018, is published in that

volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from ___ So. 3d.