Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101

Section 43-19-101(3) requires child support to be calculated from adjusted gross income after legally mandated deductions.

Lee v. Stewart Ex Rel. Summerville · filed 1998-12-18(3)

Under the facts at bar the chancellor calculated Lee's child support obligations based upon Lee's monthly gross income without subtracting the legally mandated deductions for taxes, social security, and non-voluntary retirement and disability contributions. While Lee argues that his paycheck deductions for medical insurance, 401K retirement fund, and credit union account should also have been subtracted, these do not appear to be mandatory deductions.

Section 43-19-101(3)(a) does not necessarily include installment payments of lump sum alimony in adjusted gross income for child support.

Neville v. Neville · filed 1999-02-23(3)(a)

Because we have determined this award to be lump sum alimony payable in installments rather than periodic alimony, we do not find it to be "alimony" necessarily includable in Mr. Neville's adjusted gross income as that figure is defined in section 43-19-101(3)(a) of the Mississippi Code.

Section 43-19-101 requires a noncustodial parent of two children to pay twenty percent of adjusted gross income in child support, including income from a newspaper delivery route.

Carter v. Carter · filed 1999-03-23

The child support award guidelines as provided in Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101 (Rev.1993), expressly require that a non-custodial parent of two children provide twenty percent of his adjusted gross income for the support of his children. This includes twenty percent of the adjusted gross income which Mr. Carter has derived from his paper route.

A chancellor must use the parent's correct adjusted gross income to assess whether a child support award is adequate, even when departing from the guidelines based on the child's needs.

Moulds v. Bridget Bushay Fairley Bradley · filed 1999-05-13(4)

However, we are unable to conclude whether an award of $1,000 per month for the support of one child is adequate without the benefit of the Chancellor's analysis using Moulds's correct annual adjusted gross income. The marked disparity between Moulds's income and the amount he is required to pay in child support warrants that this issue be revisited by the Chancellor.

Section 43-19-101(3)(a) permits an employment buyout to be included in adjusted gross income if it was reasonably expected to be available.

Robertson v. Robertson · filed 2001-01-16(3)(a)

While a buy-out could certainly fall under Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101(3)(a) (Rev.1993) for determining adjusted gross income, that statute includes "all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available." The buyout was not offered to Doug until about four months after he was placed on protective status, and no indication is found in the record that anyone expected that source to be available when the property settlement agreement was prepared, or when Doug was placed on protective status.

Section 43-19-101(3) does not allow general monthly expenses to be deducted when calculating adjusted gross income for child support.

Laird v. Blackburn · filed 2001-06-19(3)

There is no provision in the statute for the deduction of general monthly expenses. Therefore, compliance with the guidelines mandates that child support should have been calculated without the $716 deduction for monthly expenses.

Section 43-19-101(3) permits a chancellor to consider legitimate business expenses, including depreciation, when determining a self-employed parent's income available for child support.

Nix v. Nix · filed 2001-07-19(3)

While the amount claimed would be, in child support proceedings, subject to evidence showing that the depreciation claimed for tax purposes applied various accelerated standards, such does not appear to be the case here, and Shayna offered no evidence to so indicate. The chancellor, applying equity principles, may consider these expenditures in determining whether they were legitimate business expenditures in ultimately determining Carlo's available income to meet his child-support obligation.

Section 43-19-101 requires a child support award based on a departure from the guidelines to be reassessed using the parent's correct adjusted gross income.

Moulds v. Bradley · filed 2001-08-02(4)

However, we are unable to conclude whether an award of $1,000 per month for the support of one child is adequate without the benefit of the Chancellor's analysis using Moulds's correct annual adjusted gross income. The marked disparity between Moulds's income and the amount he is required to pay in child support warrants that this issue be revisited by the Chancellor.

Section 43-19-101(3) permits consideration of legitimate business costs when determining a self-employed parent's income available for child support.

Shayna R. Nix v. Carlo C. Nix, III · filed 1999-03-05(3)

There can be little doubt that legitimate costs of doing business for a self-employed individual are a proper consideration in determining income available to meet child support obligations.

Section 43-19-101(3) permits a chancellor to consider legitimate business expenses, including depreciation, when calculating a self-employed parent's income available for child support.

Shayna R. Nix v. Carlo C. Nix, III · filed 1999-03-05(3)

Miss. Code Ann.§ 43-19-101(3) which sets out the guidelines for determining child support, also uses the phrase "adjusted gross income" to define a calculation that, as the Court of Appeals correctly recognized, is not the same as "adjusted gross income" as used in federal income tax law. ... The chancellor, applying equity principles, may consider these expenditures in determining whether they were legitimate business expenditures in ultimately determining Carlo's available income to meet his child-support obligation.

Section 43-19-101 allows a recurring annual bonus to count as income for the full year when calculating guideline child support, even if the bonus is paid partway through the year.

Alderson v. Morgan Ex Rel. Champion · filed 1999-04-20

Based on the evidence before him, the chancellor was *468 warranted in including the bonus received in July 1997 in Alderson's income for all of 1997, not just for the latter half of 1997, as Alderson argues indirectly.

Section 43-19-101 does not require child support to be calculated from a parent’s claimed income when that figure does not reflect the parent’s true earnings.

Watkins v. Watkins · filed 1999-06-08

Even assuming arguendo Watkins had demonstrated a change in circumstances warranting a modification of his support obligations or that he had challenged the propriety of an order other than an agreement which he voluntarily entered, we do not hold the chancellor in error for refusing to base Watkins’ child support payments on a level of income which, by his *812own admission, does not necessarily reflect his true earnings and which is structured so as to avoid seizure by the IRS for payment of back taxes.

Section 43-19-101(3)(a) excludes a new spouse’s income from the calculation of child support.

Shepherd v. Shepherd · filed 2000-10-10(3)(a)

Mr. Shepherd is correct that the income of his present wife should not be used in the calculation of child support. Indeed § 43-19-101(3)(a) specifically excludes consideration of the new spouse's income in setting the applicable amount of child support. This Court's review of the record does not indicate that Dana Shepherd's income served as a basis for ordering an increase in child support.

Section 43-19-101(3) requires child support income to include employer payments for a parent's personal expenses while excluding payments for business purposes.

Pittman v. Pittman · filed 2001-06-05(3)

The chancellor must "[d]etermine gross income from all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available...." Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101(3) (Rev.2000). The chancellor considered only the actual salary. We find that there are substantial additional payments to Mr. Pittman from this closely-held company that replace what otherwise would be personal expenditures by him. Others of the payments are for business purposes and are not allocable as gross income for purposes of applying the guidelines for child support.

Section 43-19-101 presumes support of fourteen percent of the paying parent’s gross income for one child and permits written findings that the guideline does not apply when adjusted gross income exceeds $50,000.

Lazarus v. Lazarus · filed 2003-04-01

Child support award guidelines are governed by Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101 (Rev.2000). For one child, there is a rebuttable presumption that fourteen percent of the supporting parent’s gross income should be awarded for support. Id. However, in cases where the adjusted gross income of the parent paying child support is over $50,000, the chancellor may make written findings that the statutory guidelines are not applicable Id. In the case before us, Thomas has an adjusted gross income that does exceed $50,000. The chancellor noted this and Thomas’s excellent record of providing for all needs of his daughter,1 including educational needs. As such, the chancellor ordered Thomas to continue to provide for Erin’s educational needs. The chancellor stated that he would revisit this issue if Thomas should fail to provide for Erin. Again, we cannot find that this was an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion. As such, we affirm.

A housing allowance received as part of a parent's salary counts as income when calculating adjusted gross income for child support.

Bustin v. Bustin · filed 2001-07-24(3)(a)

Mississippi Code Annotated § 43-19-101(3)(Rev.2000) provides the mechanism for calculating one’s adjusted gross income for the purposes of child support payments. ... The phrase “any other form of earned income” would seem to include items in a person’s salary package. William is given that housing allowance as part of his salary from the church.

Section 43-19-101 excludes court-ordered medical and dental insurance and other child support payments from mandatory deductions when calculating adjusted gross income.

Wells v. Wells · filed 2001-11-27(b)

Similarly, we find that the court-ordered medical and dental insurance for the child and the other means of support Randy was ordered to provide for the child are not "mandatory" within the meaning of section 43-19-101; therefore, the chancellor did not commit error in declining to consider these payments when he made his statutory calculation of child support.

Section 43-19-101(3)(a)-(b) requires child support income calculations to consider all reasonably available income sources and whether reported business expenses are personal expenses.

Faerber v. Faerber · filed 2009-07-21(3)(a)-(b)

On remand, the chancellor should consider the potential commingling of business and personal expenses, all of Bobby’s income sources, and the manner in which Bobby determined his self-employment income when calculating Bobby’s adjusted gross income for child support purposes.

Adjusted gross income includes reasonably available potential income, but a chancellor may exclude earnings achievable only by endangering patients.

Crittenden v. Crittenden · filed 2013-12-10(3)(a)

Susan is correct that the term “adjusted gross income” includes “all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available to the absent parent.” Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101 (3)(a). Even so, it was within the chancellor’s discretion to find that Marcus’s adjusted gross income should not be calculated based on an earning potential that Marcus could only realize by placing his patients in potential danger.

Section 43-19-101 directs courts to consider adjusted gross income rather than net income under the child support guidelines.

Riddick v. Riddick · filed 2004-12-14

However, these child support guidelines ask the court to consider the parent's adjusted gross income, rather than his net income. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101 (Rev.2000). Since Roger's gross income increased only slightly, we find that his modest increase in adjusted gross income does not justify a twenty-five *820 percent increase in child support payments.

Gross income for child support must come from sources reasonably expected to be available; severance pay is no longer an available source after it ends.

Wheat v. Wheat · filed 2008-03-19(3)(a)

While $750 conceivably could be seen as a reasonable amount of monthly child support in light of Judy’s significant assets, the statute plainly states gross income is determined from all “expected” and “available” sources of income. The Northrop Grumman severance package was no longer an available source of income after May 2007.

Section 43-19-101(3)(b) requires mandatory deductions to be subtracted from a noncustodial parent’s gross income when calculating child support.

Holloway v. Holloway · filed 2009-10-27(3)(b)

The chancellor did not deduct those figures from Joel’s gross income of $31,912. The failure to do so is clear error, as section 43 — 19—101(3)(b) requires that those figures be deducted from a non-custodial parent’s gross income.

Gross income includes overtime pay that can reasonably be expected to continue.

Williams v. Department of Human Services · filed 2013-06-18(3)(a)

Clarence never indicated that his overtime hours would cease. In fact, based on his testimony, it is reasonable to anticipate that he will receive overtime wages in the future. Therefore, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion or was manifestly wrong in including Clarence’s overtime wages in calculating his adjusted gross income. ... Section 43-19-101(3)(a) states that one’s gross income is determined “from all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available.”

Section 43-19-101(3)(a) includes an already received NFL signing bonus in gross income for child-support purposes.

McKinney v. Hamp · filed 2018-02-08(3)(a)

Because the bonus has already been received, it was certainly “reasonably expected to be available”—as contemplated by Mississippi law. So we cannot find the chancellor was wrong to deem it “gross income” for child-support purposes.

Section 43-19-101 permits chancellors to consider SSI benefits when calculating child support, but leaves that decision to their discretion and cannot authorize withholding SSI benefits to collect support.

Barnes v. Department of Human Services · filed 2010-06-03(3)(a)

Thus, we must conclude that, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts Mississippi Code Section 43-19-101, and SSI benefits are not subject to attachment, garnishment or other legal process to satisfy a child-support order. That being said, the federal statutes do not specifically prohibit a chancellor from using SSI benefits to calculate child support. ... Rather, we hold that chancellors must utilize discretion based on the facts of a particular case.

Future rental income from property awarded to the other parent cannot be included in a parent’s gross income for child support because it is no longer reasonably available to that parent.

Collins v. Collins · filed 2010-10-18(3)(a)

A chancellor may determine gross income for child support payments from all sources “. . . that may reasonably be expected to be available to the absent parent . . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101(3)(a) (Rev. 2009). ... We find that the chancellor abused her discretion in attributing any future rental income to Perry when he no longer owned the property.

Gross income for child support excludes future rental income from property awarded to the other parent because that income is no longer reasonably available.

Collins v. Collins · filed 2013-05-09(3)(a)

A chancellor may determine gross income for child support payments from all sources “... that may reasonably be expected to be available to the *434absent parent....” Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19 — 101 (3)(a) (Rev.2009). ... We find that the chancellor abused her discretion in attributing any future rental income to Perry when he no longer owned the property.

Adjusted gross income includes gifts reasonably expected to be available to the parent paying child support.

Houston v. Houston · filed 2013-09-10(3)(a)

The term “adjusted gross income” includes “all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available to the absent parent.” Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101(3)(a). The chancellor actually valued Kellye’s adjusted gross income rather conservatively, considering that some evidence suggested that Kellye’s parents gave her more than $3,000 per month.

Section 43-19-101 permits child support to be calculated using income an obligor has the capacity to earn when the obligor voluntarily earns less; an award supported by the record need not state the exact amount imputed.

Burnham v. Burnham · filed 2015-06-16

The chancellor may impute additional income to an obligor parent who has voluntarily chosen to make less than he has the capacity to earn. ... Furthermore, the chancellor’s failure to explicitly state how much income he imputed to-Matthew is not ..reversible error. ... We affirm the chancellor’s award of child-support since the imputation of additional income is supported by the record.

Section 43-19-101 includes voluntary retirement contributions in adjusted gross income for child support, even when the contributions are separate property.

Williamson v. Sonya Williamson; · filed 2020-05-19(3)(b)(iii)

However, voluntary retirement contributions are properly included in AGI.

Section 43-19-101(3)(a) includes all potential income sources reasonably available to the parent when calculating adjusted gross income for child support.

Thomas Wayne Colbert, Jr. v. Colbert · filed 2025-02-25(3)(a)

Calculate Tom’s monthly adjusted gross income, which we note includes “all potential sources” reasonably available to him per section 43-19-101(3)(a).

Section 43-19-101 requires tax refunds to be considered when calculating adjusted gross income and does not allow health insurance premiums as mandatory deductions.

Bird v. Ladner · filed 2025-08-26

Therefore, the chancellor erred when he did not consider Joshua’s tax refund when determining his adjusted gross monthly income. ... Therefore, the chancellor erred by including the health insurance deductions when calculating adjusted gross income.

Section 43-19-101(1) sets child support for one child at fourteen percent of the noncustodial parent’s adjusted gross income, and the award must be supported by evidence of that income.

Dixon v. Christy Hayden Olmstead and Mississippi Department of Human Services; · filed 2020-05-26(1)

The child support calculation guidelines set forth in section 43-19-101(1) establish that a child-support award for one child “should be fourteen percent of the noncustodial parent’s adjusted gross income.” ... However, there is no actual evidence in the record as to the dollar amount of Dixon’s income or his adjusted gross income, to support the amount of the modified child-support obligation.

Section 43-19-101(3)(a) counts military entitlements as earned income when calculating adjusted gross income for child support.

Jefferson v. Jefferson · filed 2021-09-21(3)(a)

As we did in Price, here too we find that Andreekous’ entitlements are a form of earned income under section 43-19-101(3)(a).

Section 43-19-101(5) permits child support to be based on available evidence of a payor’s current circumstances when prior earnings no longer reflect likely income.

Leah Chancellor McKenzie v. McKenzie · filed 2024-05-21(5)

The chancellor did not abuse his discretion by setting child support based on “available information about the specific circumstances” that Matt faced in attempting to restart his practice at HLM. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101(5).

Section 43-19-101 does not require findings about applying the child support guidelines when the parties agree to a modified support amount without objection.

Williams v. Williams · filed 2001-12-11(4)

Since the record indicates no objection to the setting of the new child support amount, there was no need for evidence of a material change in circumstances or for the chancellor to make findings regarding the propriety of applying the statutory guidelines.

Section 43-19-101(1) provides a 14% guideline for support of one child, which the court directed the chancellor to use when calculating credit for payments made after the other child’s emancipation.

Caldwell v. Caldwell · filed 2002-08-13(1)

The "motion for re-set [sic]" asked for a reduction in the amount of child support payments from $500 in the original order for the two children to an amount of $302, representing 14% of Herb's net income for the remaining minor child. That motion followed our state guidelines for the amount of child support to be granted for one child. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101(1) (Supp.2001). ... The chancellor's decision was in error and we reverse and remand with instructions for the chancery court to determine the specific amount of credit Herb is owed, following the child support guidelines set forth in the Mississippi Code, dating from November to the present for Daytron's emancipation and from July of 2000 to the present for all child support payments.

Section 43-19-101 sets child support guidelines that parents may agree to exceed; an agreement incorporated into a final judgment may be modified upon a showing of appropriate circumstances.

Seeley v. Stafford · filed 2003-03-04

Second, a non-custodial parent may agree to pay child support in an amount greater than the guideline set forth in Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101 (Rev. 2000). Certainly, the parties have a right to agree to provide more support for their children than the guidelines require. We will enforce such agreements that are included in final judgments and will allow subsequent modification only upon a showing of appropriate circumstances that justify the modification.

Section 43-19-101 allows a parent to agree to pay more child support than the guidelines require, and testimony can establish that agreement.

Burcham v. Burcham · filed 2004-03-23

In Seeley v. Stafford, this Court said that "a non-custodial parent may agree to pay child support in an amount greater than the guideline set forth in Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101 (Rev. 2000). Certainly, the parties have a right to agree to provide more support for their children than the guidelines require." Seeley v. Stafford, 840 So.2d 111(¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2003). In Seeley, the agreement to pay more than the guidelines require was formally incorporated into a written agreement executed by the parties whereas in this instance Mr. Burcham's agreement is evidenced by his testimony from the witness stand. However, we do not conclude that this distinction between the form of the agreement suggests the necessity for a different treatment of a commitment by the parent that was voluntarily undertaken.

Section 43-19-101 does not require additional evidence explaining a departure from the child-support guidelines when the parents agree to the original support amount.

McCall v. McCall · filed 2019-01-29(2)

The trial court was not required to produce any additional evidence for why the court deviated from the statutory guidelines because Kevin had agreed to the original amount of child support. Here, the agreement as to the monthly amount of child support was enforceable.

Section 43-19-101(6) requires child support orders to include reasonable medical support.

Nita Elaine Snyder Dobbins v. Coleman · filed 2004-11-08(6)

Ms. Dobbins also acknowledges the conflict between an interpretation of Section 93-9-7 requiring the father to automatically provide full medical support, and the language of Section 43-19-101(6) which requires reasonable medical support. Once again, Section 93-9-7 states that the father of an illegitimate child must pay reasonable medical expenses to the same extent as the father of a child born of lawful matrimony. The correct interpretation of these statutes demonstrates how the provisions compliment each other, rather than conflict with each other.

Section 43-19-101(6) requires child support orders to include reasonable medical support; it does not automatically make the father responsible for all medical expenses.

Dobbins v. Coleman · filed 2006-04-13(6)

The chancellor noted in the Hearing for Oral Opinion that an interpretation of Section 93-9-7 requiring the father of an illegitimate child to pay all medical expenses conflicted with Mississippi Code Annotated Section 43-19-101(6), which states, "[a]ll orders involving support of minor children, as a matter of law, shall include reasonable medical support." Ms. Dobbins also acknowledges the conflict between an interpretation of Section 93-9-7 requiring the father to automatically provide full medical support, and the language of Section 43-19-101(6) which requires reasonable medical support. Once again, Section 93-9-7 states that the father of an illegitimate child must pay reasonable medical expenses to the same extent as the father of a child born of lawful matrimony. The correct interpretation of these statutes demonstrates how the provisions compliment each other, rather than conflict with each other.

Section 43-19-101(6) requires orders supporting minor children to include reasonable medical support, including consideration of costs insurance does not cover.

Byrd v. Byrd · filed 2012-11-01(6)

Pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 43-19-101(6), all orders involving the support of minor children shall include reasonable medical support. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101(6) (Rev.2009). Because the chancellor failed to address costs not covered by medical insurance, we must reverse and remand on this issue so that the trial court can make a proper determination.

Section 43-19-101(7) requires child support orders to address reasonable medical support and make findings about the availability and cost of health insurance for the child.

Osing v. Osing · filed 2024-08-13(7)

Here, the final judgment included no discussion about “reasonable medical support” for the parties’ minor son. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101(7). Thus, as a matter of law, we must reverse this part of the chancellor’s judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.