Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-115

Section 14-10-115 requires courts setting child support to consider the financial resources of both the custodial and noncustodial parent.

Davis v. Davis · filed 1975-04-01

Relative to Husband's contention that the child support award is excessive, by § 14-10-115, C.R.S.1973, the trial court is required to consider, inter alia, the financial resources of both the custodial and noncustodial parent. ... Hence, there was sufficient evidence not only to enable the trial court to consider the relevant statutory factors but also to support its resolution of these issues, and we find no abuse of discretion.

Section 14-10-115’s criteria govern a court’s first determination of a child support amount when an earlier order recognized a duty to support but set no amount.

In re the Marriage of Saiz · filed 1981-07-09

The original court order, while recognizing the mother’s duty to support, did not set “an amount” of child support using the criteria of § 14-10 — 115, C.R.S. 1973. The court’s present determination that $150 per month is reasonable support is the first determination by the court of an amount to be paid in conformance with the requirements of § 14-10-115, C.R.S. 1973. Accordingly, the court was not required to follow the modification of child support requirements under § 14-10-122, C.R.S. 1973, but rather, was governed by the criteria for entering an original order of support.

Section 14-10-115(1) supplies the criteria for deciding whether a child support award has become unconscionable and may be modified.

In Re the Marriage of Hughes · filed 1981-10-22(1)

In determining whether the terms of the decree have become unconscionable, the trial court should apply the criteria set forth in § 14-10-115(1), C.R.S.1973.

Section 14-10-115(1) sets factors the court considers when ordering child support.

In Re the Marriage of Dickey · filed 1982-10-21(1)

The court’s orders relative to maintenance and child support reflect consideration of the statutory factors set forth in §§ 14-10-114(1) and (2), C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.) and § 14-10-115(1), C.R.S.1973, and are based on factual determinations which are supported by the evidence. Hence, they also are binding on review.

A child support award reflects proper consideration of § 14-10-115’s factors when the child’s necessary expenses exceed the award and the paying parent has adequate income to pay it.

In Re the Marriage of Sorensen · filed 1984-03-08

The trial court’s child support order reflects a proper consideration of the factors in § 14-10-115, C.R.S. The record establishes that the necessary monthly expenses of the child exceeded the award of $400 a month, and that the father had adequate income to pay that amount. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion.

Section 14-10-115 requires consideration of the relevant child support criteria, including both parents’ ability to contribute, when reducing support.

In re the Marriage of Steele · filed 1985-10-03(1)

We disagree with this contention because the record demonstrates that the trial court made findings and based its conclusion on all of the relevant criteria specified in § 14-10-115, C.R.S. ... Where, as here, a custodial parent becomes capable of making substantial financial contributions toward the children’s support, and no other circumstance has changed, it is neither an abuse of discretion nor contrary to public policy for the trial court to find that the original support order has become unconscionable.

Section 14-10-115 gives trial courts broad discretion to determine child support and does not require exclusive use of a formula.

In re the Marriage of Pierce · filed 1985-11-21

The trial courts in this state are imbued with broad discretion in determining child support, and may consider all methods of computation argued. We decline to mandate the exclusive use of the proposed formula, because to do so would invade the province of the General Assembly.

Section 14-10-115 does not prescribe a mathematical formula for a just and equitable child support settlement.

Rae v. Rubin · filed 1986-04-17

Nor is there any mathematical formula for establishing a just and equitable support settlement.

Section 14-10-115(1)'s criteria must be applied when determining whether a child support order has become unconscionable.

In Re the Marriage of Gomez · filed 1986-10-09(1)

In determining whether a child support order has become unconscionable, the criteria set forth in § 14-10-115(1), C.R.S., must be applied.

Section 14-10-115 does not permit child support for a period before entry of a child support order.

In Re the Marriage of McKendry · filed 1986-12-11

Under § 14-10-115, C.R.S., a parent cannot be required to pay child support prior to entry of a child support order.

Section 14-10-115(1) requires a court considering child support modification to weigh all listed factors, including the child’s educational needs and each parent’s resources, before requiring children to exhaust their own assets for education.

In Re the Marriage of Pring · filed 1987-07-23(1)

In deciding whether the terms of a dissolution decree have become unconscionable, a trial court should consider and apply the criteria listed in § 14-10-115(1), C.R.S. ... Where, as here, the noncustodial parent has ample resources with which to contribute to his children’s education, and their ability to acquire and their need for an education are established by the evidence, we hold that it is error as a matter of law to fail to weigh the evidence giving due consideration and thought to all of the statutory factors. Hence, the trial court erred in requiring these children to exhaust their own assets for educational purposes before requiring either parent to contribute to their education.

Section 14-10-115(3)(a), read with § 14-10-122, creates a rebuttable presumption that child support should be modified when the guidelines would change the monthly amount by more than 10 percent.

In Re the Marriage of Pugliese · filed 1988-08-11(3)(a)

We hold that this section, when read together with § 14-10-115(3)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6B) creates a rebuttable presumption that a modification of child support must be granted whenever application of the child support guidelines would result in more than a 10 percent change in the amount of support due.

Section 14-10-115(1) requires a child support court to consider the parents’ and children’s financial resources, the children’s condition and educational needs, the noncustodial parent’s needs, and the living standard the children would have enjoyed if the marriage had continued.

In re the Marriage of Schwaab · filed 1990-06-14(1)

In exercising such discretion, the court must consider the financial resources of both parents and of the children, the physical and emotional condition of the children and their educational needs, the needs of the noncustodial parent, and the standard of living that the children would have enjoyed had the parents’ marriage not been dissolved. ... Consequently, this action must be remanded to the trial court for it to adopt, based on the existing record, further findings respecting the father’s income and the financial needs of the children and to amend its order respecting child support should its findings dictate such an amendment.

Section 14-10-115 requires child support to reflect the children’s demonstrated needs, considering their lifestyle and economic class; a parent’s income alone does not support the amount ordered.

In Re the Marriage of Berry · filed 1983-01-27

In determining child support, the primary focus is on the needs of the child, and the court may order a parent to pay an amount “reasonable or necessary” for the child’s support after considering the relevant factors which include life-style and economic class. ... The judgment relative to child support is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new hearing and determination of the needs of the children at the time of the hearing based on the evidence, and after due consideration is given to § 14-10-115, C.R.S.1973, for entry of a new support order.

Section 14-10-115 requires the court to use the child’s standard of living at separation when the evidence shows it likely would have continued but for the dissolution.

In Re the Marriage of Klein · filed 1983-10-13(1)(c)

This argument is totally unpersuasive, and we hold that where, as here, the evidence shows that the standard of living at the time of separation in all probability would have continued but for the dissolution, that is the standard of living the court must employ in its determinations. Section 14-10-115(l)(c), C.R.S.1973.

Section 14-10-115 places the duty to support children on both parents.

In Re the Marriage of Price · filed 1984-05-07

The wife argues that, in the absence of explicit provision for child support in the permanent custody order, the burden to provide child support rests with the husband. We disagree. The duty to provide support rests with both parents, § 14-10-115, C.R.S.1973, and it is here uncontro-verted that both parents were capable of making a financial- contribution for that purpose.

Section 14-10-115 provides an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing before a child support order is imposed, satisfying procedural due process.

Stillman v. State · filed 2003-10-23

As the trial court found, § 14-10-115 provides the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to the imposition of a child support order, and so the requirement for procedural due process is satisfied.

Section 14-10-115 provides child support guidelines for dissolution, legal separation, maintenance, and child support proceedings; they do not govern support assessed in a parental rights termination proceeding.

T.W. v. M.C · filed 2015-12-21

Section 14-10-115 is inapplicable because the guidelines are meant to “[c]alculate child support based upon the parents’ combined adjusted gross income estimated to have been allocated to the child if the parents and children were living in an intact household” and apply specifically to “proceeding[s] for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, maintenance, or child support.” § 14-10-115(1)(b)(I), (2)(a).

Section 14-10-115(2)(a) permits child support for a period after the latest of the parties’ physical separation, filing of the petition, or service on the respondent.

IN RE the MARRIAGE OF Jeremy STRADTMANN, and Andrea Stradtmann, and Concerning El Paso County Child Support Services, In · filed 2021-12-02(2)(a)

Section 14-10-115(2)(a), C.R.S. 2021, allows the court to order either or both parents to pay child support "for a time period that occurred after the date of the parties’ physical separation or the filing of the petition or service upon the respondent, whichever date is latest." Here, the latest of the three dates was March 28, 2019, when mother waived service of process. In light of the unambiguous statutory language, we vacate that portion of the permanent orders requiring father to pay child support retroactively to a date before March 28, 2019.

Section 14-10-115(2) permits a court to award reasonable child support for a period after the parties physically separated.

Marriage of Gawlik · filed 2026-05-21(2)

The child support statute, on the other hand, explicitly authorizes district courts to order retroactive child support. Specifically, it provides that the court “may order an amount [of child support] determined to be reasonable under the circumstances for a time period that occurred after the date of the parties’ physical separation.” § 14-10-115(2).

Subsection (2)(a) permits retroactive child support from the filing of a dissolution petition through the month before support begins; the court must determine whether a temporary spending order covered child support before calculating the amount owed.

Marriage of Hass · filed 2026-06-11(2)(a)

The district court may order a parent to pay retroactive child support from the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution to the month before the support obligation begins. § 14-10-115(2)(a), C.R.S. 2025. ... Accordingly, on remand, the court should determine the nature of the $2,200 monthly amount before recalculating the amount of retroactive child support owed, if any.

Section 14-10-115’s child support guidelines apply when a juvenile court determines child support in a dependency and neglect proceeding.

Peo in Interest of E.Q · filed 2020-08-03(1)(c)

It provides that the child support guidelines apply to all child support obligations that are established or modified as part of any proceeding, including article 6 of the Children’s Code. § 14-10-115(1)(c).

A court must make specific findings to support any deviation from the child support guidelines.

Marriage of Tafolla · filed 2025-08-21(8)(e)

The district court must make sufficiently explicit findings of fact to give us a clear understanding of the basis of its orders, see Gibbs, ¶ 9, including specific findings in support of any deviation from the child support guidelines, see § 14-10-115(8)(e), C.R.S. 2024.

Section 14-10-115(8)(e) permits a court to deviate from the child support guidelines for valid reasons beyond its listed factors, including a parent’s substantial separate debt.

Marriage of Ness · filed 2025-08-21(8)(e)

As mother acknowledges, section 14-10-115(8)(e) provides a non-exclusive list of reasons why the court may deviate from the child support guidelines and expressly provides that the court may deviate “even if a factor enumerated in this section does not exist.”

Section 14-10-115(8)(e) permits a court to deviate upward from the child support guidelines even when neither party requests a deviation.

Marriage of George · filed 2026-02-19(8)(e)

The child support statute does not condition awarding an upward deviation on a party’s request, so we will not read such a limitation into the statute.

In setting child support, a court considers the noncustodial parent's financial resources and may consider future earning potential.

In Re Marriage of Anderson · filed 1975-10-23

Among the factors the trial court must take into consideration in determining these orders under § 14-10-114 and § 14-10-115, C.R.S.1973, are "The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance," and "[t]he financial resources. . . of the non-custodial parent." In determining the ability and resources, the court may consider the future earning potential of the spouse.

Section 14-10-115 requires a court to consider a child's financial resources when setting parental support, but does not require specific findings about the child's assets.

In Re Marriage of Wolfert · filed 1979-05-10(1)

Section 14-10-115, C.R.S.1973, does not require the court to make specific findings of fact concerning the children's assets. What it does require is that, before determining the amount of support to be paid by a parent, the court is to consider, among other things, the financial resources of the child.

Section 14-10-115(1)(e) requires courts to consider a noncustodial parent's earning capacity as well as current earnings and assets when assessing financial resources for child support.

In Re the Marriage of Mizer · filed 1984-05-31(1)(e)

In its evaluation of "[t]he financial resources of the noncustodial parent," pursuant to § 14-10-115(1)(e), C.R.S., the trial court must consider the present earnings and assets of that parent. However, it must also consider the noncustodial parent's earning capacity.

Section 14-10-115(1) requires a court deciding whether a child support decree has become unconscionable to consider the noncustodial parent’s financial resources.

In Re the Marriage of Jarman · filed 1988-02-11(1)

In determining if a decree’s support provisions have become unconscionable, the court must consider the criteria set forth in § 14-10-115(1), C.R.S., including the financial resources of the noncustodial parent.

Section 14-10-115 does not permit an automatic reduction in gross income for non-ordered child support payments; the court must evaluate their effect through the guideline deviation process.

People in Interest of CD · filed 1988-12-22(3)(a)

We hold, therefore, that non-ordered child support payments to others are not to be determined by a mechanical application of the child support schedule to arrive at an arbitrarily calculated reduction of a parent's gross income as was done here. Rather, the impact that a parent’s claimed payment of non-ordered support obligations may have upon his or her ability to provide reasonable support for the obligee in the pending proceedings must be evaluated by the court under the method provided by § 14-10-115(3)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B).

Section 14-10-115(7)(c) requires a parent’s income statement to be verified and supported by documentation.

In Re the Marriage of Velasquez · filed 1989-04-27(7)(c)

Section 14-10-115(7)(c), C.R.S. (1987 RepLVol. 6B) requires a parent’s income statement to be verified and supported by accompanying documentation. Here, the father’s income statement, on which the trial court based its calculation, was not verified or even signed by the father. In addition, the pay stub attached to that statement did not corroborate, but rather was inconsistent with the amount of monthly income set forth in the statement.

Section 14-10-115(10)(a)(II) does not allow deductions for federal or state income taxes or FICA taxes when computing adjusted gross income for child support.

In Re the Marriage of Baroni · filed 1989-09-21(10)(a)(II)

The statute does not provide for deduction of federal and state income taxes or FICA taxes in computing adjusted gross income and father does not cite any authority requiring such a deduction. Hence, we decline to impose such a requirement.

Section 14-10-115(7)(b)(I) permits income to be imputed to a voluntarily unemployed parent when calculating child support; the amount may reflect health problems and the need for day care.

In re the Marriage of Beyer · filed 1989-10-19(7)(b)(I)

The trial court found that mother was voluntarily unemployed and, therefore, imputed to her $580 monthly income before calculating child support. See Section 14-10-115(7)(b)(I), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) (the child support guidelines). That imputed amount is approximately the monthly income of an individual employed full time at minimum wage. Husband argues that this figure is too low, because there was evidence that wife had been offered a position at a higher wage. However, in light of the other evidence with respect to mother’s health problems, and the necessity of obtaining day care if mother was employed, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s use of the $580 figure here.

Section 14-10-115 requires maintenance received to be included in a parent’s gross income when calculating child support.

In Re the Marriage of Micaletti · filed 1990-04-12(7)(a)(I)(A)

Under the child support guidelines, gross income is defined as “income from any source” including “alimony or maintenance received.” Section 14-10-115(7)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). Therefore, the trial court was required to include the monthly maintenance award in its calculation of mother’s gross income.

Section 14-10-115 permits a deduction from parental income for support obligations actually paid for other children, regardless of those children’s birth order.

In Re the Marriage of Hannum · filed 1990-04-19(7)(d), (10)(a)(II)

This amendment demonstrates the General Assembly’s awareness that, under the guidelines, obligations for subsequent children may be deducted from parental income in considering modifications of child support for prior children.

Section 14-10-115 includes personal injury settlement payments in gross income for child support purposes.

In Re the Marriage of Fain · filed 1990-06-07(7)(a)(I)(A)

While the General Assembly expressly excluded certain benefits from the definition of “gross income,” see § 14-10-115(7)(a)(I)(B), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 6B), the statute does not provide an exclusion for personal injury benefits. Therefore, we agree with the trial court that husband’s personal injury settlement payments are a financial resource that constitutes “gross income” under the child support guidelines.

Section 14-10-115(13)(b) permits a court to decline a child support adjustment for public assistance benefits that do not reduce the child’s basic needs.

In Re the Marriage of Thornton · filed 1990-11-23(13)(b)

We conclude, then, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to include the public support, such as S.S.I., food stamps, and medicaid, as income available to the daughter under § 14-10-115(13)(b). Such payments represent gratuitous contributions from governmental agencies and do not reduce the parent’s duty to provide support.

Section 14-10-115 includes maintenance in gross income when calculating child support.

In Re the Marriage of Sewell · filed 1991-07-05(7)(a)(I)(A)

The support guidelines define gross income as “income from any source,” including alimony and maintenance. Section 14-10-115(7)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). Here, the trial court erred in failing to consider either wife’s income as represented by the monthly maintenance award or her ability to earn income from the marital property distributed to her under the court’s decree.

Expected income from an inheritance counts as gross income when calculating child support.

In Re the Marriage of Armstrong · filed 1992-04-23(7)(a)(I)(A)

Thus, we hold that the trial court correctly included as part of husband’s income, a sum that the inheritance could be expected to have yielded.

Gross income for child support includes foreign service premiums, cost of living allowances, and employer payments of foreign income taxes.

Marriage of Stress · filed 1997-05-01(7)(a)

Therefore, the trial court did not err in determining that, for purposes of calculating father’s child support obligation, his gross income included the foreign service premium, the commodities and services allowance, and the expatriate tax equalization payment.

Section 14-10-115(7)(a) permits income to be imputed for child support when a parent voluntarily declines work, but the finding must have record support.

In Re the Marriage of Nordahl · filed 1992-06-04(7)(a)

Parents share an obligation to support their children to the best of their abilities, and the trial court may interpret one parent’s lack of initiative in finding or keeping work as a voluntary refusal to fulfill a support obligation. ... Here, however, there is no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that wife was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Section 14-10-115(7)(b)(I) requires potential income to be used when a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed; full-time income cannot be imputed when a child’s needs prevent the parent from working full-time.

In Re the Marriage of Pote · filed 1993-01-14(7)(b)(I)

Under § 14-10-115(7)(b)(I); C.R.S. (1992 Cum.Supp.), if a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support must be calculated on a determination of potential income. ... The findings and the evidence demonstrate that mother did not voluntarily choose part-time employment and so contradict the trial court’s conclusion. Rather, the needs of the younger child precluded her from being employed full-time, as the trial court found. Therefore, full-time income should not be imputed to her.

Child support for a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent is calculated using potential income, subject to statutory exceptions.

In Re the Marriage of Jaeger · filed 1994-09-22(7)(b)(I)

If a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support is to be calculated based on a determination of potential income, subject to exceptions not applicable here.

Section 14-10-115(7)(d.5)(I) reduces a parent’s income by the guideline support obligation for children from another family, calculated using only that parent’s gross income.

In Re the Marriage of Ansay · filed 1992-09-24(7)(d.5)(I)

Thus, § 14-10-115(7)(d.5)(I) requires that his income be reduced by the support obligation which the guidelines would yield for such children based only upon his gross income, without any other adjustments.

An income adjustment for a parent’s other child is permitted when it does not contribute to a support order lower than the existing order.

In re the Marriage of Martin · filed 1995-12-07(7)(d.5)(II)

Here, the prohibition contained in § 14-10 — 115(7)(d.5)(II) is not implicated because the decrease in husband’s child support obligation was entirely unrelated to the income adjustment given to wife for her after-born child. Rather, the reduction was due solely to the switch to a shared custody child support calculation and a decrease in wife’s work-related child care expenses.

Section 14-10-115(7)(d.5) allows an adjustment to a parent's gross income for other children the parent is legally responsible for supporting, without proof of actual payment.

In Re the Marriage of Eze · filed 1993-06-17(7)(d.5)

However, § 14-10-115(7)(d.5) requires only that the parent be "legally responsible for the support of other children." That subsection is unambiguous and makes no reference to actual payment. We may not add such a requirement to the statute.

A parent who temporarily reduces employment to pursue an advanced degree is not deemed voluntarily underemployed when the change is reasonably intended to produce higher income in the foreseeable future.

In Re the Marriage of Ehlert · filed 1994-01-27(7)(b)(III)

However, under § 14-10-115(7)(b)(III), C.R.S. (1993 Cum.Supp.), a parent is not deemed underemployed if: ... (A) The employment is temporary and is reasonably intended to result in higher income within the foreseeable future; or ... Based on those circumstances, the trial court properly determined that a modification of child support was justified and that the father should not be deemed underemployed.

Section 14-10-115(7)(b)(I) allows a court to determine a voluntarily underemployed parent's potential income without requiring proof that a particular job is available.

In Re the Marriage of Bregar · filed 1997-07-10(7)(b)(I)

Further, § 14-10-115(7)(b)(I) merely requires the court to determine potential income, and imposes no burden on one parent to prove that an available job exists for the other parent.

A good faith career choice that prevents a parent from being treated as voluntarily underemployed can also prevent the parent from being treated as voluntarily unemployed.

In Re the Marriage of Seanor · filed 1994-06-20(7)(b)(III)

Therefore, we agree with the trial court that, in the absence of a contrary direction by the General Assembly, the same rule should be applied in determining whether a spouse is voluntarily unemployed.

Section 14-10-115 allows a court to offset only the portion of a child’s income that reasonably reduces the need for parental support.

In Re the Marriage of Cropper · filed 1995-04-06

Therefore, the trial court is not bound to deduct automatically the entire amount of a child’s income from the basic child support obligation, but must determine to what extent such income reasonably should be applied to reduce parental support.

Interest and dividends accrued in a parent’s IRA count as gross income for child support, even if withdrawing them would incur a penalty.

In Re the Marriage Tessmer · filed 1995-06-01(7)(a)(I)(A)

Not having done so, we conclude that interest and dividends attributable to an IRA must be included whether accessible without payment of a penalty or not.

Section 14-10-115(7)(a) includes proceeds from exercised stock options in gross income for child support, but excludes potential proceeds until the options are exercised.

In Re the Marriage of Campbell · filed 1995-09-28(7)(a)

Consequently, we perceive no basis under the statute for the trial court’s determination that the proceeds received by father from the actual exercise of his stock options were not “ordinary income for the purposes of determining child support.” Nor do we perceive any basis for the trial court’s consideration of potential income to be received by father for exercise of future stock options until exercise of those options actually occurs.

Section 14-10-115(13) allows a court to adjust presumed child support based on a child’s financial resources when those resources reduce the child’s basic needs.

People in Interest of SMS · filed 1995-10-26(13)

Section 14-10-115(13), C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.) reposes discretion with the trial court to determine whether an adjustment to the presumed amount of child support calculated under the guidelines is appropriate because of a child’s financial resources. The dispositive question is whether the basic needs of the child are actually reduced by the additional benefits received by the child.

Lottery winnings count as gross income when calculating child support because they are prizes.

In Re the Marriage of McCord · filed 1995-12-07(7)(a)(I)(A)

In our view, lottery winnings constitute gifts or prizes within the meaning of the statute and are therefore includable as gross income.

Section 14-10-115(7)(a)(III) counts significant employment-related in-kind payments that reduce a parent’s living expenses as income for child support.

In Re the Marriage of Long · filed 1996-06-13(7)(a)(III)

Based upon this evidence and the plain language of the statute, we hold that father’s BAQ constitutes an in-kind payment that is income for purposes of child support.

Under the guidelines in effect before July 1996, income from jobs in addition to full-time employment is excluded from gross income used to calculate child support but may support a deviation.

In Re Marriage of Marson · filed 1996-11-29(7)(a)(I)

Therefore, because income from “extra” jobs is included as a reason for deviation from the guidelines, it cannot also be included as a factor in establishing the guideline amount. For this reason, the magistrate correctly concluded that income from mother’s two extra part-time jobs should not be included in the determination of her gross income used to calculate child support.

Gross income from installment payments returning an investment includes the interest portion, but not the portion returning principal.

In Re the Marriage of Laughlin · filed 1997-01-23(7)(a)(I)(A)

There is, therefore, a portion of each monthly installment which can properly be attributed to principal and a portion of each monthly payment which can properly be attributed to interest. That portion allocable to interest is income to father for child support purposes.

Section 14-10-115(7) calls for using the parents’ current income under the child support guidelines, except in limited situations where income may be averaged over several years.

Montezuma County Department of Social Services v. Laner · filed 1997-04-03(7)

Also, the current child support guidelines contemplate use of the parents’ current income, see § 14-10-115(7), C.R.S. (1996 Cum.Supp.), except in limited situations in which income may be averaged over several years.

Section 14-10-115(7)(b)(I) requires courts to determine a parent's potential income without requiring the other parent to prove that a job is available.

In Re the Marriage of MacKey · filed 1997-06-12(7)(b)(I)

Section 14 — 10—115(7)(b)(I) merely requires the court to determine potential income and imposes no burden on one parent to prove that an available job exists for the other parent.

Section 14-10-115 requires a capital gain to be included in the recipient's gross income for the year it was received when calculating child support.

In Re the Marriage of Zisch · filed 1998-09-17(7)(a)(I)(A)

We conclude that when a court presented with a motion to modify child support must determine how to treat a capital gain received by the obligor after entry of the original child support order, the court should initially include the amount of the gain as a component of the recipient's gross income for the year in which the gain was received.

Section 14-10-115(7)(d) permits a gross-income deduction for preexisting child support obligations only to the extent the parent proves payment.

In Re the Marriage of Dickson · filed 1998-12-10(7)(d)

Next, the trial court properly required proof that husband was currently paying his preexisting child support obligation for children not of this marriage. Pursuant to § 14—10—115(7)(d), C.R.S.1998, husband is entitled to a deduction in his gross income for purposes of child support only for such amounts as he actually paid. Because husband failed to provide adequate proof, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that husband would be entitled to the deduction once he supplied the requisite proof.

Section 14-10-115 excludes a guardian’s income from the calculation of child support owed by parents.

Sidman v. Sidman · filed 2009-10-29(1)(b)(I)

We conclude that the plain language of section 14-10-115 states that only the parents' incomes can be included in the determination of the amount of child support.

A parent responsible for other children may receive an income adjustment even if the other parent filed the motion to modify child support.

In Re the Marriage of Davis · filed 2011-02-17(6)(b)(I)

We do not interpret this language as applying only to the parent who filed a motion to modify child support. Rather, the statute provides that the adjustment shall be made to the income of the parent who is also legally responsible for other children. The subsequent language referring to "the parent seeking the adjustment" refers to the parent seeking the adjustment to his or her income, and not solely to a parent, like wife here, who files a motion to modify child support.

Section 14-10-115(2)(b) permits a court to consider a parent’s debt, including student loan debt incurred to pursue higher paying employment, when evaluating financial circumstances for child support.

Marriage of Bolton · filed 2024-11-14(2)(b)

The court, however, may consider debt when evaluating financial circumstances. See § 14-10-115(2)(b). And we agree with ... mother that father hasn’t provided any authority supporting the proposition that incurring debt to obtain higher paying employment is somehow irrelevant to the required evaluation of the parties’ financial circumstances. Therefore, we conclude that the district court didn’t abuse its discretion by considering mother’s student loan debt.

Section 14-10-115 does not restrict who may receive child support payments, and a child may seek support in her parents’ dissolution action.

In Re the Marriage of Conradson · filed 1979-12-13

Section 14-10-115, C.R.S. 1973, provides that the court may order either or both parents “to pay an amount reasonable or necessary for his support,” and imposes no restriction as to whom the payment is to be made; In light of these statutes, we hold that Shelley had standing to seek support for herself in this dissolution of marriage action.

Section 14-10-115 covers adopted children and requires courts setting their support to consider the statute’s relevant factors, without weighing the circumstances of the adoption.

In Re the Marriage of Ashlock · filed 1981-05-21

Accordingly, the child support statute includes adopted children as well as natural children, and this being the case, the trial court, in awarding child support, was obligated to consider only the relevant provisions of § 14-10-115, C.R.S. 1973, and it committed reversible error by considering matters related to the adoption.

Section 14-10-115(1) allows a court to order support for a dependent child of the marriage after the child reaches majority.

In Re Marriage of Koltay · filed 1982-06-14(1)

Accordingly, the provision in the decree for the child's support, "until further order of court," did not terminate when she reached age 21, see Wilkinson, supra, § 14-10-122(3), C.R.S.1973, and the court retains jurisdiction to order either or both parents to provide for her support. Section 14-10-115(1), C.R.S.1973.

Section 14-10-115(1) requires courts to consider the child's expected standard of living and educational needs when awarding support to a dependent child over 21.

In Re the Marriage of Plummer · filed 1985-08-19(1)

If, as here, the dissolution court finds that the presumption of emancipation is overcome, i.e., the child is still dependent, the court is obligated to consider the statutory criteria in awarding support. ... Section 14-10-115(1), C.R.S., lists certain relevant factors to be considered in awarding child support. Among these are: "(c) The standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved; "(d) The physical and emotional condition of the child and his educational needs...." There is abundant evidence in the record indicating that a college education is to be expected in this family: both parents have college degrees as does the elder sister.

Section 14-10-115(1) permits child support payments to a noncustodial parent when they are necessary to meet the child's needs during visitation.

Marriage v. Baerbel · filed 1987-04-09(1)

We perceive of no reason in logic or law for prohibiting a court from awarding child support to a noncustodial parent to cover that parent's expenses necessitated by visitation with the child if such payments are determined to be necessary to satisfy the needs of the child.

Section 14-10-115(1) permits a court to order a custodial parent to pay child support to a noncustodial parent for visitation expenses when necessary to meet the child’s needs.

In re the Marriage of Fest · filed 1987-04-09(1)

The needs of the child are of paramount importance in determining child support obligations under this statute. We perceive of no reason in logic or law for prohibiting a court from awarding child support to a noncustodial parent to cover that parent’s expenses necessitated by visitation with the child if such payments are determined to be necessary to satisfy the needs of the child.

Section 14-10-115 sets support factors for dissolution actions; those factors do not govern support orders in parentage actions.

Ashcraft v. Allis · filed 1987-11-05

In addition, at the time of the hearing in this case, § 14-10-115, C.R.S., set out five factors required to be considered in determining the level of support in a dissolution action, while -some ten factors were required to be considered for such purpose in a parentage action. ... Application of the dissolution statute to this parentage action constituted application of an improper legal standard to the evidence presented.

Section 14-10-115 applies to support obligations established through parental responsibility orders and permits a court to order a nonparent legal custodian who owes a duty of support to pay child support.

In Re the Marriage of Rodrick · filed 2007-06-28(17)

The parental responsibility order was entered under § 14-10-123, which is part of article 10 of title 14. It established a child support obligation by imposing the duties on husband and wife, described in § 19 — 1— 103(73)(a), to provide J.S. with the necessities of life. Therefore, the trial court had the authority, under § 14-10-115(1) and (17), to order husband to pay child support.

Section 14-10-115(2)(a) allows a court to order either or both parents to pay a reasonable or necessary amount for their child's support, although both have a continuing duty of support.

In Re Marriage of White and Martin · filed 2010-06-10(2)(a)

In accordance with section 14-10-115(2)(a), although both parents owe a continuing duty of support to a child of the marriage, courts have discretion to order either or both parents to pay an amount reasonable or necessary for the child's support.

Section 14-10-115(2)(a) obligates parents to support a child but does not impose that obligation on a former stepparent under these circumstances.

People Ex Rel. Bsm · filed 2010-07-08(2)(a)

Section 14-10-115 obligates either or both parents to support a child. ... Here, there is no dispute that stepfather is not the natural or adoptive parent of B.S.M.

Section 14-10-115 permits child support against a psychological parent who established parental status and obtained an intended-to-be-permanent allocation of parental responsibilities, if the court finds a duty of support.

In re Parental Responsibilities of A.C.H. and A.F · filed 2019-03-21(2)(a)

We conclude that in cases like Rodrick and this one the district court has the authority to determine that a psychological parent owes a “duty of support” to the child within the meaning of section 14-10-115(2), and, upon such a finding, the district court has the authority to impose a child support obligation on a psychological parent.

Section 14-10-115(13)(a)(II) continues a parent’s support obligation beyond emancipation if the child is mentally and physically disabled.

Marriage of Griffis · filed 2026-05-07(13)(a)(II)

A parent’s obligation to support a child continues beyond the age of emancipation if the child is mentally and physically disabled.

Section 14-10-115 aims to ensure that custodial parents receive sufficient funds for their minor children; that purpose does not prevent a creditor from garnishing overdue child support owed to a custodial parent.

COLORADO STATE BANK OF WALSH v. Utt · filed 1980-08-21

Defendant does assert that to permit the Bank to garnish him would defeat the purposes of the child support provisions of the Children’s Code. However, § 14-10-115, C.R.S. 1973, is intended to ensure that a custodial parent receives sufficient funds from the noncustodial parent to permit the adequate support of any minor child of divorced parents. Having failed to comply with his obligations of support pursuant to said statute, defendant is in no position to justify his acts on the basis of public policy.

Section 14-10-115 does not permit reimbursement for child support expenses incurred before entry of a child support order in a custody proceeding.

In Re the Custody of Garcia · filed 1984-11-08

Nor may these past expenses be awarded as an incident of child support in this custody proceeding because petitioner cannot be required to reimburse respondent for amounts expended by her for child support prior to the entry of a child support order under § 14-10-115, C.R.S.

Section 14-10-115(1)(d) permits a court to consider visitation travel expenses when assessing a parent’s ability to pay child support and the children’s needs.

In re the Marriage of Hoffman · filed 1985-03-14(1)(d)

The expense involved in exercising these rights was properly considered in connection with assessing the husband’s ability to pay child support and the needs of the children. See § 14-10-115(l)(d), C.R.S.

Section 14-10-115(12) allows counseling expenses in a child support calculation only for diagnosed mental disorders.

In Re the Marriage of Stone · filed 1987-12-17(12)

Section 14-10-115(12), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6B) allows counseling expenses only for diagnosed mental disorders. Here, there was no evidence of any diagnosis, so those expenses should not have been included in the support calculation.

Section 14-10-115 deducts the cost of children’s health insurance from a parent’s gross income, so premiums paid by that parent are not also deducted from the child support obligation.

In Re the Marriage of English · filed 1988-06-02(2), (7)(e)

When read together, these subsections indicate that the General Assembly did not intend to include health insurance premiums in the ordinary and necessary expenses covered by the basic child support obligation set forth in the guidelines. Therefore, health insurance premiums paid by one parent are not also deducted from that parent’s child support obligation.

Section 14-10-115 does not authorize charging one parent for the other parent’s commute to work as child support.

In Re the Marriage of Kluver · filed 1989-02-09

Neither under the former child support statute nor the present applicable amendment is there authority to charge one spouse with the transportation expense of the other spouse to and from the spouse’s place of employment.

Section 14-10-115(12)(a) requires extraordinary medical expenses to be divided in proportion to the parents’ adjusted gross income and added to basic child support.

In Re the Marriage of Nielsen · filed 1990-06-07(12)(a)

By statute, these extraordinary medical expenses were required to be divided between the parties in direct proportion to their adjusted gross income, and added to the basic child support. Section 14-10-115(12)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Yol. 6B). Since there existed a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the basic child support, the trial court erred in refusing to apply the mandatory provisions of § 14-10-115(12)(a) even though at the time of the original agreement, the child’s condition existed and was known.

A child’s earnings reduce higher education expenses only to the extent the court finds they reasonably should be applied to those expenses.

In Re the Marriage of Barrett · filed 1990-08-16(13)(a)(III)

Thus, a trial court is not bound to deduct automatically the entire amount of a child’s income from his or her educational costs or from the basic child support obligation. Rather, the court must determine whether and to what extent such income reasonably should be applied to reduce his or her need for parental support.

Section 14-10-115(12)(b) permits counseling costs to be treated as extraordinary medical expenses only if they are uninsured.

In Re the Marriage of Ahrens · filed 1993-01-14(12)(b)

The plain language of § 14-10-115(12)(b) indicates that extraordinary medical expenses “are uninsured expenses.” Hence, any consideration of what may constitute extraordinary medical expenses must begin with a determination of whether the expenses in question are uninsured. If the expenses are covered by insurance, they cannot, as a matter of law, be considered extraordinary medical expenses pursuant to the plain language of the statute.

Section 14-10-115(13)(a)(II) permits dividing a child’s transportation expenses between parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes but does not provide for allocating a parent’s travel expenses.

In Re the Marriage of Hoffman · filed 1994-06-02(13)(a)(II)

And, while a child’s transportation expenses may be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes, the child support guideline does not provide for allocation of a parent’s travel expenses.

Section 14-10-115(1.5)(b)(I) requires a court ordering parental contributions to post-secondary education to specify a reasonable sum based on the resources of each parent and the child.

In Re the Marriage of Pollock · filed 1994-08-11(1.5)(b)(I)

Under § 14-10-115(1.5)(b)(I), C.R.S. (1993 Cum.Supp.), if the trial court finds that it is appropriate for the parents to contribute to the costs of a program of post-secondary education, it must order them to contribute a sum determined to be reasonable for the educational expenses of the child, taking into consideration the resources of each parent and the child.

Section 14-10-115 permits reasonable and necessary private-school expenses to be included in child support when they meet a child’s particular educational needs, even without a learning disability or special-education need.

In Re the Marriage of Payan · filed 1995-01-12(13)(a)(I)

For the purposes of calculating child support, any reasonable and necessary expenses for attending any special or private elementary or secondary school to meet the “particular educational needs” of the child are to be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted gross income. ... In this context, the means of meeting the “particular educational needs” of a child are not limited- to providing private schooling only when a child has a learning disability or otherwise qualifies for a program of special education.

Section 14-10-115(1.5)(b)(I) requires postsecondary education contributions to be based on reasonable expenses, considering each parent's and the child's resources.

In Re the Marriage of Eaton · filed 1995-03-23(1.5)(b)(I)

The statute does not require that the expenses be “absolutely necessary,” but only that they be reasonable.

When the child's share of a health insurance premium cannot be verified, § 14-10-115(13.5)(b) requires dividing the premium among everyone covered and adding the child's share to basic child support.

In Re the Marriage of Andersen · filed 1995-04-20(13.5)(b)

It is in these circumstances that the amount of the premium attributable to the child of the mother and the father “is not available or cannot be verified.” We therefore conclude the trial court erred in refusing to allow an addition to the basic child support obligation for the amount calculated pursuant to § 14-10-115(13.5)(a) and (b).

Section 14-10-115(12)(b) permits a parent to be required to share a child’s therapy costs only if the child has been diagnosed with a mental disorder.

In Re the Marriage of Finer · filed 1996-05-16(12)(b)

In addition, the court did not find that the child has been diagnosed as having a mental disorder. And, absent such a finding, a non-eustodial parent cannot be required to share in the costs for therapy, whether such costs are included within the child support obligation or ordered to be paid separately.

Section 14-10-115(13)(a)(II) requires reasonable and necessary child transportation expenses to be divided between parents in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes.

In Re the Marriage of Elmer · filed 1997-03-06(13)(a)(II)

Here, the portion of the order that the husband pay for all of the child’s transportation expenses for each of the Minnesota visits improperly allocates all of the child’s transportation expenses to the husband instead of proportionately allocating them between the parties, with no finding as to why such is an appropriate allocation.

Section 14-10-115 permits parents’ proportionate shares of extraordinary medical expenses to be apportioned in a paternity proceeding only when the expenses are uninsured and exceed $100 for an enumerated health problem.

S.F.E. ex rel. T.I.E. · filed 1998-11-13(13.5)(h)(II)

Under the child support guidelines, extraordinary medical expenses under §14 — 10— 115(13.5)(h)(II), C.R.S.1998, are defined as uninsured expenses in excess of $100 for a single illness or condition incurred for, inter alia, reasonably necessary orthodontia, dental treatment, and any uninsured chronic health problem. ... To harmonize the potential conflict between §§19-4-116 and 19-4-129, we conclude that, in a paternity proceeding filed on or subsequent to July 1, 1988, only uninsured medical expenses exceeding one hundred dollars for enumerated health problems may be apportioned between the parties in proportion to their respective incomes.

Section 14-10-115(13)(a)(I) permits a court to divide reasonable and necessary private school costs between parents in proportion to their income, with findings supported by the record.

In Re Marriage of West · filed 2004-06-17(13)(a)(I)

The trial court has discretion to order that the reasonable and necessary costs of a child's attendance at a private school be divided between the parents in proportion to their income. ... Because we are unable to conclude that the evidence supports the trial court's findings regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the children's tuition and athletic fees, we agree that the court abused its discretion in ordering that they be included in the worksheet as extraordinary expenses.

Section 14-10-115(4) makes a parent’s obligation for extraordinary medical expenses an integral part of child support.

In Re the Marriage of Campbell · filed 2006-05-18(4)

Thus, a parent’s obligation for extraordinary medical expenses is an integral part of the child support obligation.

Section 14-10-115(13)(a)(II) requires reasonable and necessary expenses for transporting a child between the parents’ homes to be divided in proportion to their adjusted gross income, even when the travel is local.

In Re LF · filed 2002-09-12(13)(a)(II)

Because the provisions of § 14-10-115(13)(a)(II) are mandatory, In re Marriage of Long, 921 P.2d 67 (Colo.App.1996), and the statute does not limit transportation expenses only to those incurred for long distance or interstate travel, we conclude it was error to deny father's request based solely on the fact that both parents resided in Colorado.

Section 14-10-115(18)(a)(II) requires parents to share reasonable and necessary expenses for transporting a child between their homes, including local automobile travel, in proportion to their adjusted gross income.

In re the Interest of L.F. · filed 2002-09-12(18)(a)(II)

The statute here plainly provides that "any" reasonable and necessary expenses for transportation of the child between the homes of the parents shall be apportioned. ... Because the provisions of § 14-10-115(13)(a)(II) are mandatory, In re Marriage of Long, 921 P.2d 67 (Colo.App.1996), and the statute does not limit transportation expenses only to those incurred for long distance or interstate travel, we conclude it was error to deny father's request based solely on the fact that both parents resided in Colorado.

Section 14-10-115(11)(a) allows child care costs in the basic support obligation when they are incurred because of a parent's employment, job search, or education.

In Re the Marriage of Ikeler · filed 2006-12-18(11)(a)

Thus, because wife was not working, seeking employment, or attending school, the child care costs ordered by the court in calculating child support does not fall within the scope of § 14-10-115(11)(a).

The first $250 of uninsured medical expenses per child each year is part of the shared basic child support obligation. Each parent pays expenses incurred during their parenting time until that total is reached; expenses above it may be reimbursed in proportion to adjusted gross income.

of Alvis · filed 2019-06-27(10)(h)(I)-(II)

Expenses covered by the basic support obligation have already been accounted for and divided between the parents in proportion to their incomes and therefore are not reimbursable. Thus, each parent must pay uninsured medical expenses incurred during his or her parenting time, until the total for each child reaches $250, at which time the parents may seek reimbursement in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes. See § 14-10-115(10)(h)(I)-(II).

Section 14-10-115(9)(a) adds child care costs to the basic support obligation when the parent seeking them proves the amount paid and anticipated.

Marriage of Pittman · filed 2025-10-30(9)(a)

While it would not have been unreasonable for the court to include some amount of child care expenses in a child support award, it was mother’s burden to prove the amount she historically paid and anticipated needing.

Section 14-10-115(15)(c) does not treat a transfer of control over existing 529 accounts as an order to contribute to post-secondary education costs.

Parental Resp Conc LAL · filed 2026-02-12(15)(c)

But the court’s order requiring father to execute documents designating grandparents as the administrators of the children’s already existing 529 plans did not order father to contribute to the costs of the children’s post-secondary education pursuant to section 14-10-115(15)(c).

When parents’ combined income exceeds the guideline schedule’s upper limit, Section 14-10-115(10)(a)(II) calls for judicial discretion rather than mechanical extrapolation.

In Re the Marriage of Van Inwegen · filed 1988-05-26(10)(a)(II)

We conclude that it was the intent of the General Assembly that extrapolation from the guideline schedule is not to be extended to combined gross incomes above the uppermost level of the schedule.

Section 14-10-115(8) requires both parents to contribute to the children’s expenses for shared physical custody, but sets no minimum amount of contribution.

In Re the Marriage of Redford · filed 1989-06-01(8)

There is no statutory requirement that any particular amount of expense be ... proven by the parent seeking a support adjustment for shared physical custody.

Shared physical custody support requires each parent to keep the child overnight for more than twenty-five percent of the year and contribute to the child’s expenses beyond child support payments.

In Re the Marriage of Marshall · filed 1989-09-07(8)

The child support guidelines provide that, for purposes of calculating support obligations on the basis of shared physical custody, each parent must (1) keep the child overnight for more than twenty-five percent of the year and (2) contribute to the child’s expenses in addition to the payment of child support.

Section 14-10-115(3)(a) makes the guideline amount a rebuttable presumption when child support is established or modified.

In re the Marriage of Kimbrough · filed 1989-11-09(3)(a)

Section 14-10-115(3)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) provides that the amount specified in the support guidelines establishes a “rebuttable presumption” as to the proper support obligation in any action to establish or modify child support.

Section 14-10-115 does not let parents waive the presumptive amount of child support without specific, justifiable reasons for the deviation.

In Re the Marriage of Miller · filed 1990-03-01(3)(b)(I)

The protection created for the support of children would be defeated if parents were allowed to waive payment of the presumptive amount of child support without supporting such deviation with specific and justifiable reasons.

Section 14-10-115(1) requires the court to consider the children's standard of living and financial needs when setting child support for parents whose combined income exceeds the guidelines.

In Re the Marriage of LeBlanc · filed 1990-10-25(1)

Yet, without making any further specific findings, it mechanically apportioned the minimum presumptive amount of support for three children pro rata between the parties. Therefore, the court erred in failing to consider the mandatory factors of § 14-10-115(1), and this matter must be remanded for the court to adopt, based on the existing record and its award of maintenance, further findings regarding the standard of living and the financial needs of the children and to amend its order consistent with the views expressed herein.

Section 14-10-115(3)(a) requires findings when an allocation of tax exemptions effectively modifies the child support guidelines.

In Re the Marriage of Larsen · filed 1991-01-31(3)(a)

Thus if, as here, a trial court’s order effectively modifies the statutory child support guidelines by awarding all or most of the tax exemptions to one parent, the court must make findings of fact explaining its reason for doing so.

Section 14-10-115 requires a court setting child support in a paternity proceeding to calculate the presumed guideline amount first and make findings explaining any deviation.

In the Interest of D.R.Y. · filed 1994-10-20(3)(a)

To harmonize the potential conflicts between § 19-4-116(6) and § 19-4-129, we conclude that, when determining child support in a paternity proceeding, the juvenile court must initially apply the child support guidelines to determine the presumed amount of support. ... However, the court may deviate from the presumed amount of support based upon other factors, including those listed in the child support guidelines or the eleven factors fist-ed in § 19-4-116(6), so long as it enters findings that allow this court and the parties to discern the reasons for the deviation.

Section 14-10-115(3)(a) allows a court to consider a prior stipulated order when deciding whether to deviate from the child support guidelines, but the stipulation does not bind the court.

In Re the Marriage of Rosenthal · filed 1995-05-18(3)(a)

In reviewing a magistrate's order according to the standards set out in § 14-10-115(3)(a), a court is free to consider the terms of the previous order as a factor in determining whether rigid adherence to the guidelines is appropriate or whether deviation is warranted. However, even though the previous order is based on a stipulation, the court need not blindly follow that stipulation.

Section 14-10-115(3)(b)(I) requires the court to review child support agreements using the parties’ financial information; an order entered without that review may be set aside on a timely motion.

In Re Marriage of Smith · filed 1996-10-24(3)(b)(I)

In light of § 14 — 10—115(3)(b)(I), we conclude that the failure to submit to the court the financial information necessary to review a child support agreement and the failure of the trial court to conduct such a review renders the resulting order subject to being set aside pursuant to a timely filed C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) motion.

When parents’ combined adjusted gross income exceeds the highest guideline level, that level’s support amount is a rebuttable minimum.

In Re the Marriage of Balanson · filed 2000-04-17(10)(a)(II)

When the combined adjusted gross income of the parties exceeds the uppermost levels of the guideline, it is to be presumed, subject to rebuttal, that the minimum amount of support is that set forth in the highest level of the guidelines.

Section 14-10-115(3)(a) permits deviation from guideline support when applying the guidelines would be inequitable, unjust, or inappropriate, based on adequate findings.

People Ex Rel. Ak · filed 2003-01-16(3)(a)

Given the difficulty in applying Colorado child support guidelines to the needs of children in Russia, we conclude that the trial court should have considered the evidence referenced above in deciding whether application of the guidelines "would be inequitable, unjust, or inappropriate." See § 14-10-115(3)(a).

Section 14-10-115(8)(e) permits a court to deviate from the child support guidelines when the parties’ prior agreements make applying them inequitable, unjust, or inappropriate.

In Re the Parental Responsibilities of M.G.C.-G. · filed 2010-02-18(8)(e)

In addition, had mother chosen to return to court immediately following the move to Hawaii, the court certainly would have had the discretion under section 14-10-115(8)(e), C.R.S.2009, to deviate from the guidelines because, in light of the parties' previous agreements, the application of the guidelines might have been inequitable, unjust, or inappropriate.

A court that deviates from the child support guidelines must make findings explaining its reasons for doing so.

In Re the Marriage of Wells · filed 2011-03-17(8)(e)

We further agree with husband that to the extent the trial court intended to deviate from the guidelines and schedule pursuant to section 14-10-115(8)(e), the court did not enter sufficient findings in support.

Section 14-10-115(1) requires findings about the children’s specific needs when a court sets support above the guideline maximum.

In re the Marriage of Ludwig · filed 2005-09-08(1)

However, because there are no additional findings establishing the children’s specific needs, we cannot determine whether the court’s mechanical extrapolation of the child support guidelines adequately addressed the factors set forth in § 14-10-115(1), C.R.S.2004. As relevant here, those factors include not only the financial resources of the parties and the children, but also the children’s educational needs and the standard of living that the children would have had if the marriage had not been dissolved.

Section 14-10-115 requires courts to assess agreed child support under the guidelines and make specific findings about the appropriate amount.

Combs v. Tibbitts · filed 2006-10-05(3)(a)

We conclude that the trial court erred when it did not make such findings. Therefore, on remand, the trial court must make specific findings and determine the appropriate amount of child support to be paid in accordance with § 14-10-115.

Section 14-10-115(8)(d) makes a child support stipulation effective only after a court reviews and approves its adequacy under the statutory guidelines.

In re the Marriage of Beatty · filed 2012-04-26(8)(d)

Thus, any stipulation regarding the amount of child support is not effective unless the court reviews and approves it to ensure the amount's adequacy under statutory guidelines. § 14-10-115(8)(d), C.R.S.2011.

When parents’ combined income exceeds the highest level of the child support schedule, the court may use its discretion to award more than the scheduled amount without making deviation findings; an award below that amount requires a deviation.

In re Marriage of Boettcher — Family Law · filed 2018-03-08(7)(a)(II)(E)

Thus, under the statute, a court may not award less than the support amount at the highest level of the schedule without deviating under section 14-10-115(8)(e). However, deviation does not apply when the court awards more than the amount of support from the highest income level of the schedule.

For combined monthly incomes above $30,000, section 14-10-115 makes the highest scheduled award the presumptive minimum and permits a higher award within the court’s discretion.

In re Marriage of Boettcher · filed 2019-09-23(7)(a)(II)(E)

This language is clear that, while an award lower than that provided in the schedule would be a deviation from the presumptive award and would require findings as provided in section 14-10-115(8)(e), a higher amount may be awarded within the district court’s discretion.

When parents’ combined adjusted gross income exceeds the guideline schedule’s upper limit, the court must use its discretion to set child support, consider all relevant factors, and make findings explaining the amount.

IN RE the MARRIAGE OF Delinda EVANS, and Kenneth Evans · filed 2021-11-18(7)(a)(II)(E)

The district court must use its discretion in determining child support where the parties’ combined adjusted gross income exceeds the uppermost level of the child support guidelines. § 14-10-115(7)(a)(II)(E) ; see also Boettcher , ¶ 17. In exercising that discretion, the court must consider all relevant factors, including those listed in section 14-10-115(2)(b). ... The magistrate did not explain the basis for the $12,000 monthly child support figure. ... We therefore reverse the $12,000 monthly child support award and remand for further, specific findings.

Section 14-10-115 requires a 1.33 multiplier for maintenance that is not federally tax deductible when the parents’ combined monthly adjusted gross income exceeds $10,000.

Marriage of Brand · filed 2026-04-02(3)(a)(II)(B)

The parties’ combined gross incomes exceeded $14,000 per month, requiring the application of the 1.33 multiplier to the $1,309 in monthly maintenance paid by father, which should have resulted in a maintenance adjustment of $1,741 on each side of the child support worksheet.

The child support guideline applies to a modification ordered after November 1, 1986, even if the original support obligation arose earlier.

In Re the Marriage of Anderson · filed 1988-08-18(10)(b)

We reject father’s argument that since his obligation to provide support originated prior to November 1, 1986, the guideline was inapplicable. A new child support obligation arises each time a modification is ordered. Since this modification was ordered after November 1, 1986, the court correctly applied the guideline.

Section 14-10-115(3)(a) permits a court to depart from the child support guidelines when applying them would produce an unjust result, including when the parent supports another child.

In Re the Marriage of Rosser · filed 1988-12-22(3)(a)

We hold that, under the facts at issue here, the trial court abused its discretion in not deviating from' the unjust result achieved by application of guideline calculations. The record showed that the mother, living in New York City, was supporting herself and her eight-year-old daughter on an income of $1,530 per month before payroll deductions. Requiring her to pay $503 per month for the support of the other children is excessive under her circumstances.

Section 14-10-115’s child support guidelines apply when a court hears a motion to modify child support in a paternity action.

M.F. ex rel. M.F. v. L.M. · filed 1989-08-24

The child support guidelines, § 14-10-115, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) will apply.

Section 14-10-115 requires courts to apply the child support guidelines when deciding whether to modify a child support obligation, regardless of when the modification proceeding was filed.

In Re the Marriage of Greenblatt · filed 1990-02-22(17)

In determining whether this predicate showing has been made, the trial court must apply the child support guidelines set forth in § 14-10-115. These apply to all proceedings to modify child support obligations whether filed on, prior to, or subsequent to July 10, 1987.

Section 14-10-115 requires findings to justify a child support award that deviates from the guideline amount.

In re the Marriage of Sgarlatti · filed 1990-10-11(3)(a)

And, the trial court did not make the findings required by § 14-10-115(3)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B) to justify a deviation from the guidelines’ amount.

Section 14-10-115’s child support guidelines cannot be applied retroactively to determine support owed under an existing dissolution decree.

In Re the Marriage of Meisner · filed 1990-10-25

Accordingly, we agree that the trial court could not retroactively apply the child support guidelines, § 14-10-115, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), to determine the father’s child support obligation.

Section 14-10-115(3)(a) makes the guideline support amount a rebuttable presumption, allowing a parent to show circumstances warranting deviation and modification even when the guideline amount changes by less than ten percent.

In Re the Marriage of Ford · filed 1993-03-25(3)(a)

Therefore, construing § 14-10-122(1)(b) in pari materia with § 14-10-115(3)(a), we hold that the presumption of support under the guideline may be rebutted for purposes of making a predicate showing of a substantial and continuing change of circumstances under § 14-10-122(1).

A support order becomes a previously existing support order when the court enters it, even if the order takes effect retroactively.

In Re the Marriage of Oberg · filed 1995-01-12(7)(d.5)(II)

A “previously existing support order” is one already entered by the court.

Section 14-10-115(3)(b)(III) does not require reimbursement when a custodial parent allegedly fails to spend child support for the child’s benefit.

In Re the Marriage of Lishnevsky · filed 1999-03-18(3)(b)(III)

Under these circumstances, we may not, as father in effect urges, create a remedy where none exists. Reimbursement is not mandated under § 14 — 10—115(3)(b)(III), and we may not read that provision into the statute.

Section 14-10-115's child support guidelines may be used to estimate a reasonable reimbursement amount for past child support.

In Re the Marriage of Smith · filed 2000-02-03

Finally, father asserts that the trial court erred in determining the amount of damages by basing its decision on the child support guidelines set forth in § 14-10-115, C.R.S.1999, and on husband's testimony. ... We agree that use of the child support guidelines was an appropriate method to determine a reasonable amount of husband's damages.

When a court makes a new child support order on remand, both parents must be allowed to show their current circumstances.

In Re the Marriage of Foss · filed 2001-07-05(1)

We conclude that the same analysis holds true for § 14-10-115(1), C.R.S.2000, which provides that the court "may order an amount determined to be reasonable under the circumstances for a time period that occurred after the date of ... separation ... and prior to the entry of the support order." Here, where a new support order is to be made, both parties must be allowed to show their current cireumstances.

Section 14-10-115(8)(b)(III) allows parents to agree to modify child support without a hearing; otherwise, the court must determine the new amount.

In Re the Marriage of Emerson · filed 2003-08-14(8)(b)(III)

Unless the parties agreed to modify the amount of child support without a hearing pursuant to § 14-10-115(8)(b)(IlD), C.R.S.2002, the court had to determine the new amount of child support.

Section 14-10-115(1.5) permits modification of pre-July 1997 postsecondary education support obligations to comply with statutory limits on duration, amount, and covered expenses.

In Re Marriage of Chalat · filed 2004-07-26(1.5)

The orders are reversed to the extent that they provide that father's obligation for postsecondary education expenses (1) extends beyond the earlier of the child's twenty-first birthday or an undergraduate degree, (2) exceeds the presumptive guideline amount, and (3) applies to postsecondary expenses beyond those defined in the statute.

Section 14-10-115(1.5)(c.5) allows modification of postsecondary education support orders entered before 1991.

In re the Marriage of Chalat · filed 2005-05-16(1.5)(c.5)

Accordingly, we apply the statute’s plain language and hold that subsection 14-10-115(1.5)(c.5) allows the modification of pre-1991 postsecondary education support orders.

Former § 14-10-115(1.6) automatically terminated support when all children covered by the obligation were emancipated, but required a motion to reduce support when one child reached nineteen and younger children remained.

In Re the Marriage of Schmedeman · filed 2008-02-21(1.6)

Because the statute includes no authority to modify child support without the filing of a motion, the trial court correctly ruled that only an outright termination of the support obligation affecting all children is permitted without a motion.

A lump-sum child support obligation for multiple children is not automatically reduced when one child becomes emancipated; subsection (13)(a) provides for automatic termination when the last or only child turns nineteen.

In Re Adoption of Sdl · filed 2012-06-04(13)(a)

Under the Colorado precedent cited above, he is therefore incorrect in asserting that the emancipation of his oldest child automatically reduced his child support obligation. See also Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-10-115(13)(a) ("[U]nless a court finds that a child is otherwise emancipated, emancipation occurs and child support terminates without either party filing a motion when the last or only child attains nineteen years of age." (emphasis added)).

For an order setting one support amount for multiple children, one child's emancipation does not automatically reduce the obligation; absent a court finding otherwise, support terminates automatically when the last or only child turns nineteen.

SL v. CAD · filed 2012-06-04(13)(a)

Under the Colorado precedent cited above, he is therefore incorrect in asserting that the emancipation of his oldest child automatically reduced his child support obligation. See also Colo.Rev.Stat. § 14-10-115(13)(a) ("[U Jnless a court finds that a child is otherwise emancipated, emancipation occurs and child support terminates without either party filing a motion when the last or only child attains nineteen years of age." {emphasis added)).

For an order entered before July 1, 1997 that specifies no different termination age, child support ends without a motion when the last or only child turns nineteen.

In re the Marriage of Johnson · filed 2014-10-23(15)(b)

Rather, under the plain language of section 14 — 10— 115(15)(b), father’s obligation under the 1983 child support order, which did not specify any other age for emancipation or for-terminating child support, terminated without a motion when this child turned nineteen.

Section 14-10-115(2)(a) permits child support for a period after the latest of physical separation, petition filing, or service; the date of financial disclosure does not set the starting point.

Marriage of Delker · filed 2025-06-12(2)(a)

The statute does not contemplate the date financial disclosures are made as a beginning point for child support.

When children have different overnight schedules, each child’s overnight visit counts as a fraction of an overnight when determining whether shared physical custody applies and calculating support.

In the Marriage of Quam · filed 1991-06-06(8), (14)(b)

Here, by analogy, in determining whether a shared custody calculation is applicable under § 14-10-115(8), and in computing the resulting obligation under § 14-10-115(14)(b), the amount of the father’s overnight visitation should be apportioned so that father is not credited with a full overnight when he actually has less than all three children overnight. Instead, the father should be credited for one-third of an overnight each time he has one of the children with him.

Section 14-10-115(14) makes the percentage of time a child spends with each parent a factor in calculating child support.

In Re the Marriage of Paul · filed 1998-05-14(14)

Since one factor in the calculation of support is the percentage of time the child spends with each parent, any modification of child support here depended on the ruling on the motion for change of custody.

Section 14-10-115(14)(b) limits support produced by the shared custody formula, but does not prohibit a higher award based on a deviation from the presumed amount.

In Re the Marriage of Upson · filed 1999-11-12(14)(b)

However, in this case, the higher support order was not the result of application of the guidelines but was the result of a deviation from the presumed minimum amount of support. Thus, § 14-10-115(14)(b) does not prohibit the award here.

Section 14-10-115 requires evidence that a parent contributes to the child's financial needs before the shared physical care formula under Worksheet B can be applied.

In Re the Marriage of Antuna · filed 2000-07-06(8)

Given the trial court's finding of an absence of evidence from husband establishing that he contributed to the child's financial needs, there was no basis for application of the shared custody formula under worksheet B.

When parents share physical care, section 14-10-115(8)(b) calculates each parent’s share of child support using the percentage of time the child spends with the other parent.

In re the Marriage of Rohrich and Gross · filed 2016-03-10(8)(b)

And section 14-10-115(8)(b) then explains how such shared physical care arrangements affect the calculation of child support. This section provides that each parent’s share of the basic child support obligation must be multiplied by the percentage of time the child spends with the other parent to determine which parent will be the obligor for child support purposes.

When children have different parenting time arrangements, section 14-10-115(8)(g) requires the court to average their overnights on one worksheet, including for a retroactive modification.

Marriage of Maloit · filed 2025-11-13(8)(g)

We reverse the order modifying child support and remand for the district court to recalculate the retroactive modification using the average number of overnights on one worksheet for each sub- period of the retroactive modification period as required under section 14-10-115(8)(g).

Section 14-10-115(14.5) requires findings supporting the allocation of dependent-child tax exemptions between parents.

In Re the Marriage of Trout · filed 1994-09-22(14.5)

Here, the trial court modified the allocation as requested by wife in her closing argument without finding any substantial and continuing changed circumstances that would justify modification of the existing order, which awarded both exemptions to father. Nor did the court make the findings required by § 14-10-115(14.5) with respect to such entitlement.

Section 14-10-115(14.5) measures each parent’s contribution to raising the children by that parent’s percentage of child support under subsection (14).

In Re the Marriage of Staggs · filed 1997-06-12(14.5)

In light of this history of the statute, we hold that the phrase “contributions to the costs of raising the children” in § 14-10-115(14.5) refers to the percentage of child support attributed to each parent under § 14-10-115(14).

Section 14-10-115(12) requires courts to divide the dependency tax exemption according to each parent's percentage of income for child support purposes.

In re the Marriage of Cardona · filed 2010-12-09(12)

Pursuant to section 14-10-115(12), a trial court must divide the dependency tax exemption between the parties in proportion to their contributions to the costs of raising the child, which means according to the percentage of income attributed to each parent for child support purposes.