Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.212

Section 403.212(2)(d) permits a court to find a parent voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without finding an intent to avoid or reduce child support.

Howard v. Howard · filed 2011-04-21(2)(d)

In fact, KRS 403.212(2)(d) specifically states that “[a] court may find a parent to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without finding that the parent intended to avoid or reduce the child support obligation.” So a finding of bad faith is no longer required — contrary to the holding of McKinney — and the validity of the trial court’s denial of modification of his child support obligation is not undermined by a lack of finding of bad faith.

Section 403.212(2)(d) permits potential income to be imputed without a finding that the parent intended to avoid or reduce child support, but requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, with community employment opportunities and earnings levels rather than national wage data alone guiding the determination.

Polley v. Allen · filed 2004-04-02(2)(d)

As a result, the trial court need not find that James has purposely limited his income to find that he is voluntarily underemployed. However, we do not interpret the statute as requiring a trial court to impute income to a parent who earns less than the amount which the occupational statistics indicate he should. Rather, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether to impute income to a parent. Indeed, KRS 403.212(2)(d) specifies that “[potential income shall be determined based upon employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor’s or obligee’s recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the community.” While properly supported national wage data may be instructive, it is by no means a controlling factor.

Section 403.212(2)(d) requires child support to be calculated using potential income when a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, unless the parent is physically or mentally incapacitated or caring for a child age three or younger, and permits that finding without proof of an intent to avoid or reduce support.

Jones v. Hammond · filed 2010-08-20(2)(d)

A court may find a parent to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without finding that the parent intended to avoid or reduce the child support obligation.

Section 403.212(2)(d) permits a court to use a parent's potential income for child-support purposes when the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, based on employment potential, recent work history, qualifications, and local job opportunities and earnings.

McGregor v. McGregor · filed 2011-02-18(2)(d)

Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 403.212(2)(d) allows a court to base child support on a parent’s potential income if it determines that the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. The statute further provides that a “court may find a parent to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without finding that the parent intended to avoid or reduce the child support obligation.” Rather, a parent’s potential income must be based upon the parent’s “employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obli-gor’s or obligee’s recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the community.” KRS 403.212(2)(d).

Section 403.212(2)(d) requires child support to be calculated using a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent’s potential income, based on employment potential, work history, qualifications, and local job opportunities and earnings; the court may impute income up to earning capacity when reduced earnings are a matter of choice without reasonable cause.

Shafizadeh v. Shafizadeh · filed 2012-12-14(2)(d)

In so doing, however, the family court “must consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether to impute income to a parent.” Polley v. Allen, 132 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Ky.App. 2004).

Section 403.212(2)(d) requires a showing of bad faith before a parent may be treated as voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and assigned potential income for child-support purposes.

Keplinger v. Keplinger · filed 1992-09-04(2)(d)

While KRS 403.212(2)(d) allows the trial court to consider a party’s potential income under some circumstances, this Court has held that there must be a showing of bad faith. ... If an individual’s employment situation changes because of circumstances beyond [her] control or is reasonable in light of all the circumstances, then it would be unfair to find [her] to be voluntarily underemployed. KRS 403.-212(2)(d) must therefore be interpreted to include a bad faith requirement.

Section 403.212(2)(e) permits child support to be based on a parent’s potential income only when the court determines that the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Erskine v. Erskine · filed 2023-10-26(2)(e)

KRS 403.212(2)(e) allows a court to base child support on a parent’s potential income if it determines that the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Section 403.212(3)(e) limits imputation of potential income to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent and requires consideration of the listed circumstances.

Bryant v. Bryant · filed 2024-06-13(3)(e)

In calculating child support obligations, income may only be imputed to parents when the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, and such a calculation is to be based upon the parent’s potential income.

Section 403.212(d) requires income to be imputed to incarcerated parents for child-support purposes because incarceration is not among the statute's exceptions and incarcerated parents are treated like other voluntary unemployed or underemployed parents.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Marshall v. Marshall · filed 2000-03-24(d)

However, KRS 403.212(d), was amended in 1994, to eliminate the need of the trial court before imputing income to find that the parent acted in bad faith. This statutory change, coupled with the statute’s exception for imputing income to two specific groups (that is, incapacitated parents and those caring for children three years of age and under) convince us that the Legislature did not intend to exempt incarcerated parents from those for whom income should be imputed for purposes of child support. Certainly, the Legislature is aware that incarcerated parents are no more able to obtain employment than parents of young children or mentally or physically disabled parents. Thus, the Legislature’s refusal to include incarcerated parents among those identified as being excepted from imputed income convinces us that incarcerated parents are to be treated no differently than other voluntary unemployed, or underemployed parents owing support.

Section 403.212 requires child-support calculations to use actual gross income when a parent is employed to full capacity and permits potential income to be imputed for voluntary unemployment or underemployment, including consideration of income from more than one job when the facts warrant it.

Gossett v. Gossett · filed 2000-10-20(2)(a), (2)(d)

KRS 403.212 mandates that earnings and income from all sources be considered when setting child support. While we agree that it is generally not appropriate to impute additional income to a parent already working a full 40 hour week, we disagree with the trial court’s resolution of the issue as one of law. Rather, we believe that the issue is one of fact as reflected in the following reasoning employed by the Virginia Court of Appeals when confronted with the issue: ... [A]s a general rule a court should not impute to a person income from more than one job. However, this is not a rule to be applied in all cases as a matter of law. Depending upon the circumstances peculiar to each case, particularly where there is a history of a spouse having had two jobs, the trial court may find it appropriate to consider imputing to a spouse income from more than one job. The court should consider the previous history of employment, the occupational qualifications, the extent to which the parent may be under employed in the primary job, the health of the individual, the needs of the family, the rigors of the primary job and the second job, and all other circumstances.

A parent who loses a job after on-the-job intoxication may be found voluntarily underemployed without proof of an intent to avoid or reduce child support, and the court must then determine potential income using the statute’s specified factors.

Richards v. Drake IV · filed 2021-03-11(2)(d)

First, it is important to note that the General Assembly amended KRS 403.212(2)(d) in 1994 to explicitly include that “a court may find a parent to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without finding that the parent intended to avoid or reduce the child support obligation.” The clear legislative intent is to broaden what may constitute voluntarily unemployment or underemployment, not to constrain it. ... Therefore, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that Father was voluntarily underemployed. ... On remand, the trial court shall enter an order finding Father to be voluntarily underemployed. The court shall then proceed to the second part of KRS 403.212(2)(d) in order to assess potential income with “due consideration of all of the statutory factors.” ... Thereafter, the amount of income shall be calculated according to the child support guidelines table provided in KRS 403.212(7).

Section 403.212(2)(d) requires child support to be calculated using potential income when a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, based on employment potential, probable earnings, work history, qualifications, and local job and earnings levels.

McKinney v. McKinney · filed 2008-06-13(2)(d)

[i]f a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be calculated based on a determination of potential income.... Potential income shall be determined based upon employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor’s or obligee’s recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the community. A court may find a parent to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without finding that the parent intended to avoid or reduce the child support obligation.

Section 403.212(2)(d) permits child support to be based on a parent's potential income when the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, without requiring an intent to avoid or reduce support, and directs courts to assess potential income using employment potential, probable earnings, work history, qualifications, and local job opportunities and earnings.

Maclean v. Middleton · filed 2014-01-03(2)(d)

KRS 403.212(2)(d) allows a court to base child support on a parent’s potential income if it determines that the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. A trial “court may find a parent to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without finding that the parent intended to avoid or reduce the child support obligation.” KRS 403.212(2)(d). The statute further specifies that “[potential income shall be determined based upon employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor’s or obligee’s recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the community.”

Section 403.212(2)(d) requires potential-income-based support for a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent, but bars imputing potential income to a physically or mentally incapacitated parent and requires consideration of specified employment factors.

Jarboe v. Reynolds · filed 2018-02-16(2)(d)

Child support is calculated based upon parents' income. KRS 1 403.212(2)(d) provides that when a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, support "shall be calculated based on a determination of potential income, except that a determination of potential income shall not be made for a parent who is physically or mentally incapacitated...." (Emphasis added). The statute provides that potential income "shall be determined based upon employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor's ... recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the community." Id. ... As noted above, if one is physically incapacitated, a trial court is not authorized to make a determination of his potential income pursuant to KRS 403.212(2)(d). Moreover, the trial court's conclusion that Jeffrey's potential annual income equaled $46,000 was not derived from his probable earnings level based on his "recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the community." Instead, the court based Jeffrey's potential income solely upon Doreen's annual income. Under the circumstances, this determination is not supported by the law, and we cannot affirm it.

Section 403.212(2)(d) requires potential income for a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent to be determined from employment potential, work history, occupational qualifications, and local job opportunities and earnings, and permits imputation without proof of an intent to avoid or reduce child support.

Byrdwell v. Byrdwell · filed 2022-01-27(2)(d)

If a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be calculated based on a determination of potential income, except that a determination of potential income shall not be made for a parent who is incarcerated, physically or mentally incapacitated, or is caring for a very young child, age three (3) or younger, for whom the parents owe a joint legal responsibility. Potential income shall be determined based upon employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor’s or obligee’s recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the community. A court may find a parent to be voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without finding that the parent intended to avoid or reduce the child support obligation. ... We find no error in the trial court only imputing a minimum wage income to Appellee. ... We believe that based on Appellee’s lack of recent work history and lack of employment qualifications, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the imputation of minimum wage income.

When a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, § 403.212(2)(d) requires child support to be based on potential income determined from employment potential, probable earnings, work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing community job opportunities and earnings levels.

Hempel v. Hempel · filed 2012-09-21(2)(d)

Potential income shall be determined based upon employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor’s or obligee’s recent work history, occupational qualifications, and *553prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the community.

Section 403.212(2)(d) requires child support to use potential income for a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent, but bars imputing potential income to a parent caring for a child age three or younger for whom the parents owe joint legal responsibility.

Lambert v. Lambert · filed 2015-11-13(2)(d)

If a parent is voluntarily 'unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be calculated based on a determination of potential income, except that a determination of potential income shall not be made for a parent who is physically or mentally incapacitated or is caring for a very young child, age three (3) or younger, for whom the parents owe a joint legal responsibility.” KRS 403.212(2)(d) (emphasis added). Janessa is currently caring for her two youngest children, both of whom are under the age of three. We therefore find that the circuit court abused its discretion by imputing minimum wage to Janessa.7 On *654remand, the circuit court must note Janes-sa’s income as zero and order the minimum $60 monthly child support obligation.

Section 403.212(5) gives courts broad discretion when combined parental gross income exceeds the guideline ceiling, subject to the child’s best interests and specific factual reasons.

Normandin v. Normandin · filed 2020-12-15(5)

In any support determination, KRS 403.211(3) and 403.212(5) give the court broad discretion when the combined parental gross income exceeds the upper limit.

Section 403.212(2)(a) presumes that future income will match the worker’s most recent experience, and a party seeking another level bears the evidentiary burden.

L'Heureux v. Tricia A. Hettinger L'Heureux · filed 2022-02-02(2)(a)

KRS 403.212(2)(a) must be read as creating a presumption that future income will be on a par with the worker’s most recent experience.

Section 403.212(2)(d) provides a statutory basis for justifying the child-support award.

Robbins v. Robbins · filed 1993-03-19(2)(d)

Appellant’s contentions as to the child support award border on being frivolous. Given the statements in Ms. Robbins’ brief, it appears clear not only that the court’s award does not violate the statutory guidelines, but that in any event it can be justified pursuant to the provisions of KRS 403.212(2)(d).

Section 403.212 provides presumptive child-support guidelines rather than mandatory amounts, allowing reasonable deviations when the court states the reason for deviation.

Michelle Carver (Butler) v. Carver · filed 2016-05-05

But as the statute itself states, "the child support guidelines in KRS 403.212 shall serve as a rebuttable presumption for the establishment or modification of the amount of child support." KRS 403.211(2) (emphasis added). ... Given that plain language, it should be unnecessary for an appellate court to continue to explain that the guidelines amounts specified in KRS 403.212 are just that—guides—and not black letter law. Nonetheless, courts and litigants often adhere to the guidelines amounts as mandatory, which leads to arguments such as those before the Court in this case. Instead, courts have broad discretion to deviate from the presumptive guidelines, limited only by reasonableness and actually making a record of the reason for deviation.

Section 403.212 supplies child-support guideline amounts that are guides rather than mandatory figures, and courts may reasonably deviate from them when the guideline result is unjust or inappropriate.

Michelle Carver (Butler) v. Carver · filed 2016-06-03

Family courts and litigants have placed widespread reliance on KRS 403.212, better known as the Child Support Guidelines statute, to fix support payments since its enactment in 1990. ... But as the statute itself states, "the child support guidelines in KRS 403.212 shall serve as a rebuttable presumption for the establishment or modification of the amount of child support." KRS 403.211(2) (emphasis added). ... Given that plain language, it should be unnecessary for an appellate court to continue to explain that the guidelines amounts specified in KRS 403.212 are just that—guides—and not black letter law. Nonetheless, courts and litigants often adhere to the guidelines amounts as mandatory, which leads to arguments such as those before the Court in this case. Instead, courts have broad discretion to deviate from the presumptive guidelines, limited only by reasonableness and actually making a record of the reason for deviation. KRS 403.211(2).

Section 403.212 requires courts to apply the child-support guidelines when establishing or modifying child support.

Ernest Thompson, Jr. v. Thompson · filed 2022-03-03

It must then apply the child support guidelines as set out in KRS 403.212, and accompany any deviation with specific findings in support of the deviation as required by KRS 403.211.

Section 403.212 requires courts to use the child support guidelines when determining an appropriate child support amount, subject to a justified deviation.

Smyth v. Deaton · filed 2025-02-07

Alex is able to change his mind and request child support as the Child’s primary residential custodian at any time, and the family court is required to consider the child support guidelines when this occurs. No justification for any deviation from the child support guidelines was provided in this case. The family court did not reference the guidelines at all in its order. Based on the limited record before us, we must conclude that the family court abused its discretion by failing to utilize the guidelines to set an appropriate child support amount.

Section 403.212's child-support guidelines may be used to determine a modified support obligation even when the parties previously agreed to a lower amount.

Taylor v. Tad Dirk Taylor · filed 2025-03-14

Finally, the family court did not err by using the child support guidelines found in KRS 403.212 to assess Christina’s new child support obligation, even though the parties’ agreement was a deviation from those guidelines.

Section 403.212 governs the guideline-based calculation of child support when no prior order respecting support requires the modification framework.

Herl v. Herl · filed 2025-09-05

The family court erred by treating Haley’s motion as one governed by KRS 403.212, as though no order respecting child support had ever been entered.

Section 403.212(3) requires child support amounts to be apportioned between the parents in the same proportion as their base child-support amounts.

Giacalone v. Giacalone · filed 1994-03-11(3)

However, all child support amounts should be payable by the parties in the same proportion as their base child support amount as provided in KRS 403.212(3).

SSI benefits are excluded from gross income, potential income is not imputed to a physically disabled parent, and a parent whose sole income is SSI cannot be required to pay child support under the guidelines absent an extraordinary circumstance such as sufficient assets.

Youngblood v. James · filed 1994-09-02(2)(b), (2)(d), (6)

It is clear from the language in these two sections of KRS 403.212, that a disabled parent whose sole means of income is SSI benefits, has no gross income for purposes of determining child support. Since the guideline table in KRS 403.212(6) starts at $100.00 a month gross income, child support cannot be ordered under the guidelines. ... In our view, the legislative intent is clear from the language in KRS 403.211 and KRS 403.212 that a parent whose sole means of income is SSI benefits cannot be required to pay child support absent some extraordinary circumstance such as having other sufficient assets.

Section 403.212(2)(f)2 permits a parent’s income to be reduced by amounts paid under pre-existing child-support orders, but only to the extent those payments are actually made.

Marksberry v. Riley · filed 1994-12-09(2)(f)2

Applying the child support guidelines, the trial court found that Reginald’s statutory contribution for the support of his first child was $475 per month. This determination was not erroneous according to KRS 403.212(2)(f)2.

Section 403.212(2)(e) treats employment-related expense reimbursements that significantly reduce a parent’s personal living expenses, including free housing, as income, but leaves the trial court discretion to decide whether the reimbursement is significant.

Pegler v. Pegler · filed 1995-02-10(2)(e)

While the statute appears on its face to be mandatory, some discretion remains with the trial court in determining whether such expense reimbursements are significant.

Section 403.212 treats social security benefits as gross income for child-support calculations unless they are benefits from means-tested public assistance programs.

Miller v. Miller · filed 1996-09-20

KRS 403.212 specifically includes social security benefits in its definition of “gross income.” The statute requires inclusion of income from any source except as excluded by the statute, and the only exclusions are benefits received .from “means-tested public assistance programs, including but not limited to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Food Stamps.”

Section 403.212(2)(b) defines parental gross income to include social security benefits and supplemental security income.

Barker v. Hill · filed 1997-08-01(2)(b)

The current version of KRS 403.212(2)(b) which defines “gross income” specifically answers this question. The statute expressly provides that social security benefits and supplemental security income should be included as parental gross income.

Section 403.212(b) excludes means-tested public assistance from gross income for child-support calculations; the court held that the earned income tax credit qualifies, but the additional child tax credit does not.

Brausch v. Brausch · filed 2008-09-26(b)

We agree with the court in Brown that as defined under Kentucky statutory law, the EIC is a public assistance program.

Section 403.212 treats the full Supplemental Security Income benefit as gross income, even when paid through a payee, and apportions the guideline support obligation between the parents in proportion to their gross incomes.

Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. Ivy · filed 2011-10-27(2)(b), (3)

Turning first to that part of the family court’s order reducing Ivy’s support obligation, we note that under KRS 403.211 and 403.212, child support is to be determined by applying the guidelines to the parents’ combined, adjusted gross incomes. The guidelines provide a statutory child support obligation — the “table amount,” not less than sixty dollars ($60) per month — and that obligation is then divided between the parents in proportion to their gross incomes. KRS 403.212(3). Under KRS 403.212(2)(b), “gross income” is defined to include Supplemental Security Income. Pursuant to these provisions, in April 2008, Ivy and Barnes were found to have a combined monthly income of $2489.50, including Ivy’s SSI benefit of $637.00. That income yielded a guidelines support obligation of $411.74, which was apportioned $305.74 to Barnes and $106.00 to Ivy.

Section 403.212(2)(b) requires SSI benefits to be included in child-support income calculations.

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Morris v. Morris · filed 1998-10-15(2)(b)

SSI benefits are to be included in the calculation for purposes of determining the amount of child support payments.

Section 403.212(4) establishes a $60 monthly minimum child-support obligation for families with zero adjusted gross income, subject to rebuttal when applying the guideline would be unjust or inappropriate.

Brashears v. Commonwealth · filed 1997-05-02(4)

The table applies a $60.00 obligation on the noncustodial parent of a family with zero income. Thus, the application of the $60.00 child support obligation is presumed to be correct in all cases where the combined monthly adjusted gross income is between $0.00 and $100.00, unless it can be shown that the application of this guideline would be unjust and inappropriate. KRS 403.211(2). In this case, the combined monthly adjusted gross income was zero. Thus, application of the $60.00 minimum child support obligation for Charles is presumed to be correct unless rebutted. We do not agree with Charles that his having no gross income rebuts the presumption. To allow the same fact that creates the presumption also rebut the presumption is illogical. The legislature has established that $60.00 is appropriate for families with zero income. Thus, Charles’ claim that he has no income is no defense.

When combined parental income exceeds the child-support guidelines, the trial court may use judicial discretion to determine the amount of child support.

Rasnick v. Rasnick · filed 1998-07-02(5)

As noted earlier, John and Suzanne’s adjusted gross income for the three years preceding entry of the decree averaged $456,-500.00, well beyond the guidelines. ... In such a case, the trial court is authorized to use its “judicial discretion in determining child support.” KRS 403.212(5). However, the trial court’s order does not reveal how it determined that support of $500.00 per month per child is adequate or whether income from trusts established for the benefit of the children was taken into account in calculating support. In fact, the order says nothing more than that “[t]he motion to increase child support [is] overruled (sic — denied).”

Section 403.212(5) permits a court to set child support using judicial discretion when combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the highest income level in the child-support guidelines, but an above-guidelines award must primarily reflect the child’s needs and be supported by specific findings.

Bell v. Cartwright · filed 2009-01-16(5)

A trial court may use its judicial discretion to determine child support in circumstances where combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the uppermost level of the guidelines table. KRS 403.212(5). The child support table ends at the $15,000.00 per month level, so deviation from the guidelines is clearly appropriate in this case. However, in Downing v. Downing, 45 S.W.3d 449, 456 (Ky.App.2001), this Court made it clear that “any decision to set child support above the guidelines must be based primarily on the child’s needs, as set out in specific supporting findings.” (Emphasis added).

When combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the highest levels in the child-support guideline table, the court may use judicial discretion to determine support.

Dickens v. Dickens · filed 2013-05-24(5)

We see no error in the trial court’s determination that deviation from the guidelines was proper given the parties’ combined adjusted gross income. The combined parental income in this case exceeds the uppermost levels of the guideline tables. Pursuant to KRS 403.212(5), “[t]he court may use its judicial discretion in determining child support in circumstances where combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the uppermost levels of the guideline table.” See also KRS 403.211(3)(e).

Section 403.212(5) permits a family court to set child support outside the guidelines when combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the guidelines’ highest level, while subsection (7) lists the guideline amount when the parties’ income is within the guidelines.

Ciampa v. Ciampa · filed 2013-08-16(5), (7)

The child support guidelines set out in Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 403.212 serve as a rebuttable presumption for the establishment or modification of the amount of child support. Nevertheless, family courts may deviate from the guidelines when they make specific findings that application of the guidelines would not be just or appropriate. KRS 403.211(2). Specifically, the family court may use its judicial discretion to set child support outside the guidelines in circumstances where combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the uppermost level of the guidelines. KRS 403.212(5). ... In response to Peter’s argument that the intent of the statute, KRS 403.212(7), is not met when only a three per cent reduction in the child support amount is ordered and the child support is for one rather than two children, we make several observations. First, KRS 403.212(7) does not express any intentionality but merely lists the amount of child support to be paid when parties’ income is not outside the guidelines.

Section 403.212 provides formulaic child-support guidelines based on the parents’ combined income and a table indicating the amount of support due.

McFelia v. McFelia · filed 2013-08-29

On the question of child support, however, there is generally less reason to exercise discretion because the legislature has provided statutory guidelines that are formulaic, and look directly at the amount of household incomes that should be available for the children of the marriage, regardless of which home they are residing in. KRS 403.212 provides guidelines that allow the combined income of the parents to be located on a table, and then indicates how much of that income should go to support the children.

Section 403.212 requires child-support income to include income such as bonuses and restricted stock units, and gives courts discretion to set support when combined parental income exceeds the guideline maximum.

Normandin v. Normandin · filed 2021-04-29(2)(b), (5)

For purposes of child support, income is defined as “actual gross income of the parent if employed to full capacity or potential income if unemployed or underemployed.” ... “Gross income” includes income from any source, except as excluded in this subsection, and includes but is not limited to income from salaries, wages, retirement and pension funds, commissions, bonuses, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust income, annuities, capital gains, Social Security benefits, workers' compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, disability insurance benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), gifts, prizes, and alimony or maintenance received. ... In any support determination, KRS 403.211(3) and 403.212(5) give the court broad discretion when the combined parental gross income exceeds the upper limit. ... Therefore, it is clear the RSU income should have been included in the income calculation, and the trial court erred in not doing so.

When the parents' income exceeds the child support guidelines, the court must use its discretion to set support rather than mechanically apply the guidelines.

Teresa K. Williams (Fka Ruiz and Cao) v. Ruiz · filed 2022-01-27(5)

Where the income of parents exceeds the Kentucky child support guidelines, a court is required to use its discretion in setting support. KRS 403.212(5).

Section 403.212(5) requires the family court to exercise discretion when setting support above the guideline range.

Wilson v. Inglis · filed 2018-07-06(5)

KRS 403.212(5) further mandates that the family court utilize its discretion when setting child support.

Section 403.212(5) permits a trial court to use judicial discretion to set child support when combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the guideline table's uppermost level, rather than treating the maximum guideline amount as presumptive.

Downing v. Downing · filed 2001-04-06(5)

The child support guidelines set out in KRS 403.212 serve as a rebuttable presumption for the establishment or modification of the amount of child support. Courts may deviate from the guidelines only upon making a specific finding that application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate. ... However, KRS 403.211(3)(e) specifically designates that “combined monthly adjusted parental gross income in excess of the Kentucky child support guidelines” is a valid basis for deviating from the child support table. Furthermore, the trial court may use its judicial discretion to determine child support in circumstances where combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the uppermost level of the guidelines table. ... The child support table ends at the $15,000.00 per month level, so deviation from the guidelines is clearly appropriate in this case.

Subsection (5) permits a court to use judicial discretion to set child support when combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the top of the guideline table, based on the child's best interest and supported by specific findings.

McCarty v. Faried · filed 2016-05-02(5)

We hold that a trial court's decision, when setting child support over and above the guidelines, must be based on the best interest of the child. When making that determination, a trial court may use its judicial discretion with regard to weighing factors such as: the needs of the child, the financial circumstances of the parents, and the reasonable lifestyle the child may have been accustomed to before or after the parents separated.? On review, an order setting child support above the guidelines will be affirmed so long as the trial court sets out specific supportive findings and the award, as a whole, is reasonable in light of those findings and the record.

Section 403.212(5) permits a court to use judicial discretion to set child support when the parents’ combined adjusted gross income exceeds the highest income level in the guideline table.

McCarty v. Faried · filed 2016-09-22(5)

A trial court’s first step when establishing child support is to attempt to comply with Kentucky’s statutory guidelines as codified in Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 403.212. In a typical case, a court will calculate the parents’ combined monthly adjusted gross income and then determine the appropriate child support obligation amount from the guidelines table. KRS 403.212(2)-(7). However, because the table ends at $15,000 in combined monthly income, KRS 403.212(5) provides: “The court' may use its judicial discretion in determining child support in circumstances where combined adjusted parental gross income exceeds the uppermost levels of the guideline table.” ... We hold that a trial court’s decision, when setting child support over and above the guidelines, must be based on the best interest of the child. ... On review, an order setting child support above the guidelines will be affirmed so long as the trial court sets out specific supportive findings and the award, as a whole, is reasonable in light of those findings and the record.

For self-employment income, gross income is business receipts less ordinary and necessary expenses, and courts must scrutinize taxable income and may depart from it when it has been manipulated to avoid or minimize child support.

Snow v. Snow · filed 2000-07-14(2)(c)

This statute confronts trial courts with the unenviable task of distinguishing between a self-employed child-support obligor’s taxable income and what may be called his or. her disposable income. ... Nevertheless, as the statute recognizes, taxation and child support serve different purposes. Trial courts establishing child support thus have the discretion and the duty to scrutinize taxable income and to deviate from it whenever it seems to have been manipulated for the sake of avoiding or minimizing a child support obligation or when deviating from it is clearly in the best interest of the child.

For child-support calculations, the statute allows only straight-line depreciation in self-employment income and requires potential income for a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent to reflect work history, qualifications, and prevailing local job opportunities and earnings.

Gripshover v. Gripshover · filed 2008-02-21(2)(c), (2)(d)

Straight-line depreciation, using Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidelines, shall be the only allowable method of calculating depreciation expense in determining gross income.

Section 403.212(c) requires courts to calculate self-employment income from gross receipts less allowable ordinary and necessary business expenses, using straight-line depreciation, and to count significant business reimbursements or in-kind benefits that reduce a parent's personal living expenses as income.

Shelton v. Shelton · filed 2014-10-17(c)

Furthermore, KRS 403.212(c) dictates to the family court how income from self-employment is to be determined. ... It is incumbent on the family court to examine the income of the father by reviewing all sources of income, including those expenses or reimbursements he received for personal living expenses associated with the company, which necessarily includes auto, housing, meals, dues, etc.

Section 403.212(2)(c) treats calculation of a self-employed parent’s gross income as a statutory requirement separate from deviation from the guidelines.

Ahmed v. Dhalow · filed 2020-11-05(2)(c), (7)

However, the determination of a self-employed parent’s gross income is not a deviation from the guidelines, but a separate statutory requirement under KRS 403.212(2)(c).

Section 403.212(2)(b) treats income from nonrecurring events, including capital gains, as gross income and requires it to be included in the year received when calculating child support.

Clary v. Clary · filed 2001-08-31(2)(b)

KRS 403.212(2)(b) defines “gross income” broadly to include income from any source and explicitly includes capital gains. The statutes do not specifically exclude nonrecurring income and the list includes items, i.e., bonuses, gifts, severance pay, and prizes, that are typically singular, nonrecurring events. ... We hold that when a parent receives income from a nonrecurring event, the trial court should include that amount in the year received and then apply the guidelines pursuant to the table in KRS 403.212 to determine the child support obligation.

Section 403.212(2)(b) broadly includes significant gifts and financial assistance in gross income, but excludes repayable student loans shown to be allocated solely for education.

Stewart v. Burton · filed 2003-06-20(2)(b)

We believe that the trial court correctly found that the type of gifts given to appellant is appropriate to the definition of income in KRS 403.212(2)(b). That definition does not limit gifts to only those items which are income-producing, as appellant urges. ... The trial court may determine that a gift should not be included in income if it is inconsequential, nonrecurring or unlikely to provide sufficient funds to pay the increased child support obligation. From all of the circumstances in this case, we find that the trial court acted properly in including these gifts as a source of income. ... We are persuaded by these authorities that the loans appellant obtained to pay for his educational expenses should not be included as income under the statutory guidelines. The amounts must be repaid, and there was no showing that these loans were allocated for anything other than appellant’s education. Therefore, on remand the trial court should again compute appellant’s child support obligation without inclusion of his student loan amounts.

Section 403.212(2)(b) treats gifts, including cash or expenses paid on a parent's behalf, as gross income for child-support calculations.

Penner v. Penner · filed 2013-09-27(2)(b)

KRS 403.212(2)(b) specifically includes gifts as gross income for the purposes of calculating child support. Gifts can take the form of cash or of payments made on a *782parent’s behalf. See Stewart v. Burton, 108 S.W.3d 647 (Ky.App.2003). There, this Court found that expenses paid by the father’s parents (one-half of his rent and his car lease payment) were appropriately included by the trial court in the father’s income.

Section 403.212(2)(f) requires parties in dissolution cases involving child-custody issues to file fully documented income statements, but it does not limit courts to documented income; courts may consider undocumented income when properly established by evidence.

Schoenbachler v. Minyard · filed 2003-04-24(2)(f)

We therefore interpret KRS 403.212(2)(f) as a requirement that parties file fully-documented income statements in dissolution cases that present child custody issues. ... Although we interpret KRS 403.212(2)(f) as a requirement that parties file documented income statements, that statutory requirement does not mean that trial courts may consider only this documented income when determining child support. ... We thus conclude that, while child support, as a general rule, shall be based on the parties’ documented income, a trial court may consider income not susceptible to documentation if such income is properly established by the evidence.

When a state agency obtains child support for a child committed to its custody, the parent's support obligation to the other parent for the other child is calculated under the split-custody provision.

Rodney P. v. Stacy B. · filed 2005-08-25(6)

If the Department of Juvenile Justice has since obtained child support from Rodney pursuant to KRS 610.170, his child support obligation to Stacy should have been recalculated in accordance with KRS 403.212(6).

Section 403.212(2)(g)(4) permits an imputed child-support deduction for prior-born children when calculating a parent's adjusted gross income for later-born children's support, and that treatment has a rational basis.

Kimbrough v. Commonwealth, Child Support Division ex rel. Belmar · filed 2006-07-21(2)(g)(4)

So the question before this Court is, is there a rational basis for allowing parents to deduct imputed child support for prior-born children in computing that parent’s gross income under KRS 403.212? In viewing the language of KRS 403.212(2)(g)(4), it is clear that the purpose of the legislation was to ensure that parents had sufficient financial resources to meet the needs of prior-born children before setting child support for later-born children. ... We agree with the above courts that the state’s interest in seeing that prior-born children are provided for is a rational basis for the provision at issue in KRS 403.212(2)(g)(4).

Section 403.212(2)(a) bases child-support calculations on the parties’ gross incomes, so tax savings from a dependent-child exemption are not considered in setting support because they do not reduce gross income.

Adams-Smyrichinsky v. Smyrichinsky · filed 2015-08-20(2)(a)

Child support calculations are based on the gross incomes of the parties, KRS 403.212(2)(a), and the fact that a party pays less taxes (and arguably has more money to spend on the children) is not a consideration in setting the amount of child support owed.

For child-support calculations, gross income generally includes gifts, although a court may exclude a gift that is inconsequential, nonrecurring, or unlikely to provide enough funds to pay the increased support obligation.

Layman v. Bohanon Jr · filed 2020-03-26(3)(d)

“Gross income” is defined as income from any source, except as excluded in this subsection.

Section 403.212(2)(c) treats self-employment income as gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary business expenses, and subsection (2)(d) bases potential income on work history, qualifications, and local job opportunities and earnings.

Bootes v. Bootes · filed 2015-08-28(2)(c), (2)(d)

Although Damon chose not to report the income-from the tax planning business on his personal income tax returns, and chose to give all of the proceeds of the business to his father, such income is still gross income pursuant to KRS - 403.212(2)(c). ... The remainder constitutes gross income to be included in calculating Damon’s child support obligation. ... Potential income shall be determined based upon employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor’s or obligee’s recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing job opportunities and earnings level in the community.

Section 403.212 treats workers’ compensation as gross income, but permits a court to treat a one-time payment as nonrecurring for later years, and permits imputing potential income to an unemployed or underemployed parent based on specified circumstances.

Commonwealth of Kentucky, by and Through the McLean County Attorney v. Tapp · filed 2025-11-07(3)(b), (3)(e), (3)(e)3.

Under KRS 403.212(3)(b), a parent’s “gross income” includes income from any source, including workers’ compensation benefits. The settlement Spencer received therefore constituted income for purposes of child support. But as we explained in Clary v. Clary, 54 S.W.3d 568, 573-74 (Ky. App. 2001), the trial court retains discretion in how nonrecurring income is treated. A one-time payment must be included in the year it is received, but it need not be projected as continuing income for later years. ... KRS 403.212(3)(e) authorizes a court to determine potential income when a parent is unemployed or underemployed, and subsection (3)(e)3. directs the court to consider the parent’s assets, work history, education, health, and the local labor market. ... Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to treat Spencer’s 2023 workers’ compensation settlement as recurring income for 2024 and in imputing only minimum-wage earnings when modifying his child-support obligation.

Section 403.212(2)(a) presumes that future income will be on par with the worker’s most recent experience when calculating child support.

Warawa v. Warawa · filed 2021-11-10(2)(a)

For purposes of child support calculation, income “must be read as creating a presumption that future income will be on a par with the worker’s most recent experience.”

Section 403.212(2)(c) permits business-expense deductions from gross income for self-employment or business ownership, but not for a general employee's unreimbursed expenses.

Bell v. Bell · filed 2014-02-20(2)(c)

Of course, a trial court may take a parent’s unreimbursed business expenses into account for child-support purposes. Without proof of self-employment, however, the expenses cannot be deducted from the parent’s gross income. Instead, if the trial court within its discretion finds the expenses are “extraordinary,” it may deviate from the guideline amount of child support listed in the KRS 403.212 table.

For child-support purposes, income from joint ownership of a partnership is based on gross receipts, not merely tax items allocated to a partner; an actual distribution is a gross receipt, while an allocation of taxable partnership income without evidence of distribution is not sufficient.

Hawkins v. Hawkins · filed 2014-06-20(2)(c)

KRS 403.212(2)(c) defines “gross income” from “joint ownership of a partnership” as “gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required for ... business operation.” However, “the statute recognizes taxation and child support serve different purposes” and cautions against the wholesale adoption of taxable income listed on a tax document. Snow v. Snow, 24 S.W.3d 668, 672 (Ky.App.2000). “Income ... [from] operation of a business shall be carefully reviewed to determine an appropriate level of gross income available to the parent to satisfy a child support obligation.” KRS 403.212(2)(c). ... As noted, KRS 403.212(2)(c) says that to recognize income from joint ownership of a partnership, we begin with “gross receipts [.] ” There is no evidence in this record that Amie received anything but her proportionate share of tax liability for being a member of a limited partnership. That has no evidentiary value in calculating child support. ... Such a distribution, unlike a mere allocation, does represent a “gross receipt” of income. ... However, there is no evidence in this record that Amie in fact received any distribution. The $103,895.00 figure on line 17 certainly is not evidence of a distribution or a gross receipt of income. ... Under the facts of this case, the family court did not abuse its discretion when it omitted from the child support calculation the partnership’s allocation of tax items to Amie.

Section 403.212(2)(d) bars imputing potential income to an incarcerated parent, treating the parent like one who is physically or mentally incapacitated or caring for a very young child.

Davis v. Lora L. Brady Through the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health And · filed 2020-11-05(2)(d)

Now, under the 2019 amendment of KRS 403.212(2)(d), incarcerated parents are among those specifically excluded from the statute’s scope. Thus, incarcerated parents are in the same position as a parent who is “physically or mentally incapacitated” or “caring for a very young child[.]” KRS 403.212(2)(d). As such, the trial court is not authorized to determine an incarcerated parent’s potential income.

When a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, support is based on potential income, but potential income cannot be imputed if the parent is caring for a joint child age three or younger.

Dusing v. Bakker · filed 2023-06-15(3)(e)1.

KRS 403.212(3)(e)1. states, “If there is a finding that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be calculated based on a determination of potential income, except that a finding of voluntary unemployment or underemployment and a determination of potential income shall not be made for a parent who . . . is caring for a very young child, age three (3) or younger, for whom the parents owe a joint legal responsibility.” L.D. was less than two (2) years of age at the time of the hearing. Therefore, the family court did not err in finding Jill’s income to be accurate, even if she only worked part-time at the time of the hearing.

When potential income is imputed for voluntary underemployment, the court must consider the parent's employment and earning history and record of seeking work, among the statutory circumstances.

Leberecht v. Kara Bishop Leberecht · filed 2024-03-20(3)(e)3.b. and d.

Although not specifically stated by Appellant, it appears as though he is arguing that the trial court did not discuss the imputation of potential income factors set forth in KRS 403.212(3)(e)3. ... Here, the trial court’s order set forth Appellant’s previous income and the income he receives post-retirement. The court held that Appellant was underemployed based on the difference in his pre- and post-retirement income. These findings would show that that court did consider KRS 403.212(3)(e)3.b. and d. It is unclear if the court considered the rest of the KRS 403.212(3)(e)3. factors, but that is because Appellant did not seek additional findings. We conclude that the court’s findings in this case were sufficient and that Appellant should have moved for additional findings if he believed they were inadequate.

Section 403.212(2)(d) permits a court to use potential income for a voluntarily underemployed parent, but potential income cannot include unknown speculative future sources.

Duffy v. Duffy · filed 2018-01-19(2)(d)

KRS 403.212(d) allows a trial court to demine potential income in calculating child support, but contrary to Faustina's position, that determination simply cannot include all unknown speculative sources of future *831income.

Section 403.212(2)(d) permits child support to be based on potential income when a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Goble v. Goble · filed 2021-07-22(2)(d)

KRS 403.212(2)(d) allows a court to base child support on a parent’s potential income if it determines that the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Section 403.212(5) gives the court discretion to set a reasonable support amount when combined parental income exceeds the guidelines, subject to the parties’ finances and the children’s needs.

Stiegelmeyer v. Stiegelmeyer · filed 2022-07-15(5)

the family court was correct to determine a reasonable amount of support to meet the children’s needs pursuant to KRS 403.212(5).

Section 403.212(2)(d) limits imputation of child-support income to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent and bases potential income on the parent’s potential and local employment evidence.

Petty v. Adkins · filed 2022-11-17(2)(d)

In calculating child support obligations, income may only be imputed to parents when the parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, and such a calculation is to be based upon the parent’s potential income.

Section 403.212’s very-young-child exception does not bar imputation of income where the parent is able to work and the facts do not establish that the exception applies.

Sharpe v. Felix H. Sharpe, II · filed 2023-04-27(3)(e)2; (2)(d)

Therefore, we hold that the exception related to raising a very young child does not apply here.

Section 403.212 supplies the child-support guidelines that a court must follow unless it makes sufficient findings of fact justifying a deviation.

Baier v. Baier · filed 2025-04-18

The family court shall either enter an order in conformity with the child support guidelines in KRS 403.212, which is what the parties sought, or make ... sufficient findings of fact to justify any deviation from those guidelines.

Section 403.212(3)(e) requires courts imputing income to consider employment and earning history and other relevant factors, not only the most recent work history.

Sarah Kathleen Graff (Kna Riley) v. Bowman · filed 2025-10-03(3)(e)

This applicable version of KRS 403.212 notably does not require that the family court confine its consideration of the obligor’s earnings to only the obligor’s most recent work history, but instead generally calls for considering one’s employment and earning history along with other relevant factors.

Section 403.212(2)(b) includes VA disability benefits paid directly to a parent for a child in that parent’s gross income when calculating child support.

Crouch v. McClure · filed 2022-01-13(2)(b)

Therefore, the VA disability benefit paid directly to Rodney for the benefit of the child should be included in Rodney’s gross income for calculating child support and would not be credited against Rodney’s child support obligation. See KRS 403.212(2)(b).