Overview: The Rebuttable Presumption
New York's Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) creates a rebuttable presumption that the guideline amount calculated under the statutory formula is the correct child support obligation. However, DRL § 240(1-b)(f) and FCA § 413 recognize that strict application of the formula may produce results that are "unjust or inappropriate" in specific cases.
When such circumstances exist, courts have the authority—and in fact the duty—to adjust the support amount. But this authority is not unfettered. The statute establishes a structured framework requiring consideration of enumerated factors, written findings, and a paramount focus on the child's best interests.
The "Unjust or Inappropriate" Standard
The statutory language "unjust or inappropriate" is deliberately broad to allow courts flexibility while maintaining the guideline's presumptive correctness. New York case law interprets this standard to require:
- Specific factual circumstances that make the guideline amount inconsistent with the child's actual needs, the parents' financial realities, or principles of fairness.
- Evidence beyond mere preference—neither party can simply argue they "think" a different amount is better without concrete, fact-based justification.
- Focus on the child's welfare—the deviation must serve the child's best interests, not the convenience or financial preferences of the parents.
The 10 Statutory Deviation Factors
DRL § 240(1-b)(f) mandates that courts consider the following ten factors when evaluating whether to deviate from the guideline amount:
The financial resources of the parents and the child. This includes consideration of income, assets, earning capacity, and access to resources beyond current income (e.g., trust funds, family support, investment income).
The physical and emotional health of the child and any special needs or aptitudes. Courts may increase support for children with disabilities, chronic medical conditions, or exceptional educational needs (e.g., gifted programs, specialized tutoring).
The standard of living the child would have enjoyed if the family remained intact. This factor is particularly relevant in high-income cases, ensuring children benefit from parental affluence and are not disadvantaged by their parents' separation.
The tax consequences to each party. Courts may consider how the support order interacts with tax filing status, dependency exemptions (though federal changes have reduced this factor's relevance), and the after-tax financial burden on each parent.
The non-monetary contributions each parent will make to the child's care and well-being. This recognizes that parenting involves more than money—extensive hands-on care, time commitment, and emotional support have economic value.
The educational needs of either parent. Courts may temporarily reduce support if a parent is pursuing education or training that will enhance their earning capacity and benefit the child long-term.
A determination that the gross income of one parent is substantially less than the other parent's gross income. Extreme income disparities may justify adjustments to ensure fairness and avoid results that place undue hardship on the lower-earning parent while failing to adequately benefit the child.
The needs of other children of the non-custodial parent for whom the non-custodial parent is providing support. This prevents double-counting and ensures the obligor's support obligations to all children are considered holistically. However, voluntary subsequent children typically receive less weight than pre-existing obligations.
Provided that the court has made provision for the support of any children pursuant to subdivision five of this part, any fact or circumstance that is relevant, including the provision made for visitation with the child by the non-custodial parent in lieu of monetary support. This is rare and typically applies only in cases where the non-custodial parent provides substantial non-monetary support (e.g., housing, education) that offsets the need for cash transfers.
Any other factors the court deems relevant. This catch-all provision allows courts to consider unique circumstances not captured by the first nine factors, provided the court explains its reasoning in written findings.
Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Requirements
The party seeking a deviation from the CSSA guideline amount—whether the custodial parent arguing for a higher award or the non-custodial parent arguing for a lower amount—bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that strict application would be "unjust or inappropriate."
This requires:
- Credible evidence: Testimony, financial records, expert opinions, or other admissible evidence supporting the requested deviation.
- Specific factual basis: General assertions or conclusory statements are insufficient. The moving party must tie their request to one or more of the ten statutory factors.
- Best interest analysis: The party must show that the deviation serves the child's best interests, not merely the financial convenience of the parent.
Mandatory Written Findings
If a court deviates from the CSSA guideline, it must make specific written findings explaining:
- The amount of the guideline obligation;
- The amount actually ordered;
- The reason(s) the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate;
- Which of the ten statutory factors were considered and how they influenced the decision.
Failure to make adequate written findings is reversible error. Appellate courts frequently remand cases where trial courts deviate without sufficient explanation, even if the deviation itself might have been justified on the merits.
Common Deviation Scenarios
High-Income Cases (Above $183,000)
For combined parental income exceeding the statutory cap of $183,000/year, DRL § 240(1-b)(c)(3) grants courts discretion to apply the CSSA percentages to the excess income or determine an appropriate amount using the ten factors. While technically not a "deviation" (since it's discretion built into the statute), the analysis is similar.
Courts commonly apply lower percentages to very high incomes to avoid windfalls while ensuring children enjoy the benefits of their parents' affluence.
Shared Custody (50/50 or Substantial Time-Sharing)
In cases of true 50/50 physical custody, courts recognize that both parents incur substantial duplicated household expenses. While the statute designates the higher earner as the obligor, courts may deviate to account for this economic reality, often resulting in reduced transfers or even no transfer if incomes and expenses are relatively equal.
Special Needs Children
Children with disabilities, chronic health conditions, or extraordinary educational needs often require support beyond the guideline amount. Courts routinely order upward deviations under Factor 2 to ensure these children receive necessary care, therapies, equipment, and services.
Non-Custodial Parent with Other Dependents
Under Factor 8, courts may reduce support if the non-custodial parent has pre-existing child support obligations or is actively supporting other minor children. However, voluntary subsequent children typically receive less weight to avoid incentivizing obligors to reduce support by having more children.
Use Our Calculator
Our free New York Child Support Calculator calculates the presumptive guideline amount under the CSSA. While it cannot predict court-ordered deviations (which are highly fact-specific), it provides the baseline from which deviations are measured.