Rule 1910.16-7. Support Guidelines. Awards of Child Support When There are Multiple Families.

 (a)  When the total of the obligor’s basic child support obligations equals fifty percent or less of his or her monthly net income, there will generally be no deviation from the guideline amount of support on the ground of the existence of a new family. For example, where the obligor requests a reduction of support for one child of the first marriage on the basis that there is a new child of the second intact marriage, and the relevant monthly net incomes are $2,500 for the obligor, $500 for the former spouse and $1,300 for the current spouse, the request for a reduction will be denied because the total support obligation of $1,142 ($601 for the first child and $541 for the second child) is less than half of the obligor’s monthly net income.

 (b)  When the total of the obligor’s basic support obligations exceeds fifty percent of his or her monthly net income, the court may consider a proportional reduction of these obligations. Since, however, the goal of the guidelines is to treat each child equitably, in no event should either a first or later family receive preference. Nor shall the court divide the guideline amount for all of the obligor’s children among the households in which those children live.

  Example 1. The obligor is sued for support of an out of wedlock child. The obligor is already paying support for two children of the first marriage, and has an intact second marriage with one child. The relevant monthly net incomes are $1,500 for the obligor, $1,100 for the former spouse, $0 for the current spouse and $1,500 for the parent of the new child. The guideline amounts for each family are $514 for the two children of the first marriage, $386 for the one child of the second marriage, and $362 for the one child out of wedlock for a total support obligation of $1,262. Since the total of these obligations exceeds fifty percent of the obligor’s net monthly income of $1,500 per month, the court may consider a proportional reduction of all of the orders.

  Example 2. The obligor is sued for support of three children of a second marriage. There is already an order in effect for two children of the first marriage. The relevant monthly net incomes are $1,000 for the obligor, $0 for the first spouse and $500 for the second spouse. The guideline amounts for each family are $229 for the two children of the first marriage and $422 for the three children of the second marriage for a total support obligation of $651. Since this total obligation leaves the obligor with only $349 on which to live, the order for the three children of the second family is too high. However, reducing the order for three children while leaving the existing order intact would give preference to the first family, contrary to the rule. Therefore, both orders must be reduced proportionally.

  Example 3. The obligor is sued to establish orders for three children born out of wedlock. The net monthly incomes for the obligor and for each obligee is $1,500. The court would determine that the guideline figure for each child is $362 for a total obligation of $1,086 for three children. It would be incorrect to determine the guideline amount for three children, in this case $724, and then divide that amount among the three children.

 (c)  For purposes of this rule, the presumptive amount of the obligor’s basic support obligation is calculated using only the basic guideline amounts of support, as determined from the formula in Rule 1910.16-4, and does not include any additional expenses that may be added to these amounts pursuant to Rule 1910.16-6. In calculating the presumptive amount of the obligor’s basic support obligation, the court should ensure that obligor retains at least $748 per month consistent with Rule 1910.16-2(e).

  Example 1. Assume that the obligor is paying $591 per month support for one child of the first marriage, plus an additional $200 per month for child care expenses. The obligor requests a reduction in this support obligation on the basis that there is one new child of the second intact marriage. The relevant incomes are $2,400 for the obligor and $0 for both the former and current spouses. The obligor’s request for a reduction should be denied because the total of the basic guideline obligations for both children is only $1,182 ($591 for each child) and this amount does not exceed 50% of the obligor’s net monthly income. No reduction should be given on the basis that the obligor’s contribution to child care expenses for the first child results in an overall support obligation of $1,382 which exceeds 50% of the obligor’s net monthly income. Thus, the presumptive amount of basic support for the two children is still $1,182 ($591 for each child). The court must then consider the deviation factors under Rule 1910.16-5 and the parties’ respective contributions to additional expenses under Rule 1910.16-6 in arriving at an appropriate amount of total support for each child.

  Example 2. Assume that the obligor is paying $227 per month support for one child of the first marriage. The obligor has one new child of the second intact marriage. The relevant incomes are $1,000 for the obligor and $0 for both the former and current spouses. No reduction should be given on the basis of the obligor’s new child because the total of the basic guideline obligations for both children is only $454 ($227 for each child) and this amount does not exceed 50% of the obligor’s net monthly income. Since, however, this amount leaves the obligor with only $546 per month, the court should proportionally reduce the support obligations so that the obligor retains $748 per month. Thus, the presumptive amount of basic support for the two children is $252 ($126 for each child). The court must then consider the deviation factors under Rule 1910.16-5 and the parties’ respective contributions to additional expenses under Rule 1910.16-6 in arriving at an appropriate amount of total support for each child.

 (d)  When an obligor is subject to more than one order for child support, spousal support and/or alimony pendente lite, the priority for distribution of payments and/or collections from the obligor, without regard to the source of the funds or method of collection, are as follows unless the court specifically orders a different distribution priority:

   (1)  current child support.

   (2)  medical, child care or other court-ordered child support-related expenses.

   (3)  current spousal support or alimony pendente lite.

   (4)  child support arrears.

   (5)  spousal support or alimony pendente lite arrears.

   (6)  court costs.

   Rule 1910.16-7 has been amended to reflect the updated schedule at Rule 1910.16-3 and the increase in the Self-Support Reserve (‘‘SSR’’), formerly the CAM, to $748 per month. This rule sets forth the calculation of child support obligations in the context of multiple families. Awards of spousal support in this context are addressed in Rule 1910.16-2(c)(2).

   In determining whether the total support obligations exceed 50% of the obligor’s net income to warrant a proportionate reduction of the child support orders, subdivision (c) clarifies that the total consists only of the basic amounts of child support, as derived from the income shares formula in Rule 1910.16-4, and does not include additional expenses that may be added to these basic amounts under Rule 1910.16-6. As the first example illustrates, no reduction should be given if the basic support obligations do not exceed 50% of the obligor’s net monthly income even though his or her contribution to additional expenses may result in an overall obligation exceeding this percentage of income. As the second example illustrates, however, in low income cases it may be necessary to adjust the child support obligations proportionally even though they do not exceed 50% of the obligor’s net income. This is consistent with the goals of the SSR to ensure that the obligor retains sufficient income to maintain the incentive to work so that he or she can support all of the children.

   Subdivision (c) also emphasizes that the initial amounts which are calculated for purposes of determining whether a proportional reduction is warranted are only presumptive amounts of child support. They are subject to upward or downward adjustment under Rules 1910.16-5 and 1910.16-6 relating to deviation and additional child-related expenses which are typically added to the basic obligation. This is intended only to emphasize that the establishment of appropriate support obligations for children of different families involves the same considerations as the establishment of a support obligation for a child or children of a single family.

   Subdivision (d) addresses the priority of the distribution of payments and collections. However, collections realized through the interception of federal tax returns by the Internal Revenue Service are subject to federal distribution priorities. See 45 CFR 303.72(h).

   The provisions of this Rule 1910.16-7 adopted December 7, 1998, effective April 1, 1999, 28 Pa.B. 6162; amended October 30, 2001, effective immediately, 31 Pa.B. 6273; amended October 31, 2002, effective immediately, 32 Pa.B. 5632; amended September 27, 2005, effective 4 months from the date of this order, 35 Pa.B. 5643. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (312386) to (312388).