Florida's 73-overnight rule: how §61.30(11)(b) changes child support, and why it can go up

This post explains what Florida Statutes §61.30 says about child support when each parent has the child for at least 73 overnights a year, and it does the arithmetic the statute describes. It is not legal advice, it is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney, and it does not predict what a court will order in your case. How many overnights a parenting plan provides, and whether a court departs from the guideline amount, are decided in the case itself. A Florida family lawyer can advise on a specific case. What follows is the statute text, the worksheet it feeds, and the numbers.

Florida child support has two methods, and the number of overnights decides which one runs. Below 20% of the year’s overnights for either parent, the worksheet splits a single schedule amount between the parents by income. At 20% or more for each parent, the statute switches to a different calculation: the schedule amount is multiplied by 1.5, each parent’s share is weighted by the other parent’s overnights, and the two results are netted. People call this the gross-up method, and the Florida worksheet uses that name too.

Twenty percent of 365 is exactly 73. That is where the switch happens, and the switch is not always in the direction people expect.

The short version

• The threshold is 73 overnights. §61.30(11)(b)8 defines “substantial amount of time” as “at least 20 percent of the overnights of the year.” Form 12.902(e) puts the number on the page: “73 overnights in the year.”
• The statute says “must”. Under §61.30(1)(a), the trier of fact “must order payment of child support which varies from the guideline amount as provided in paragraph (11)(b) whenever any of the children are required by court order or mediation agreement to spend a substantial amount of time with either parent.” Subparagraph 7 of (11)(b) still lets the court deviate from the gross-up result on stated grounds.
• The formula: schedule amount × 1.5, split by income share; each parent’s figure × the other parent’s percentage of overnights; the difference is the transfer, then child care and health insurance are credited or debited (§61.30(11)(b)1 to 6).
• The worksheet result can go up at 73. In our worked example, the worksheet figure for a parent with 75% of the combined net income is $2,523.75 a month at 72 overnights and $2,776.13 at 73. In our own algebra on the statute’s formula (not a rule from any court or agency), with no child care or insurance, the result at exactly 73 overnights is higher than at 72 when the paying parent has more than 60% of combined net income, the same at 60%, and lower below 60%.
• Below 73, there is no formula. Time-sharing under 20% appears only as deviation factor 10 in §61.30(11)(a), something a court may weigh, with no arithmetic attached.
• Nothing pending changes it. No bill in the 2026 session cited §61.30, none filed for 2027 does as of October 15, 2026 (only claim bills had been filed by then), and the 2025 and 2026 statute texts are identical. A February 2026 report to the Legislature recommends replacing the 20% cliff; a report is not law.

Where 73 comes from

Section 61.30(11)(b) opens with the condition:

“Whenever a particular parenting plan, a court-ordered time-sharing schedule, or a time-sharing arrangement exercised by agreement of the parties provides that each child spend a substantial amount of time with each parent, the court shall adjust any award of child support, as follows:”

Subparagraph 8 defines the term:

“For purposes of adjusting any award of child support under this paragraph, ‘substantial amount of time’ means that a parent exercises time-sharing at least 20 percent of the overnights of the year.”

The statute speaks in percent. The worksheet that implements it, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.902(e), Child Support Guidelines Worksheet (06/25), speaks in nights. Its heading for the second half of the worksheet reads:

“Substantial Time-Sharing (GROSS UP METHOD) If each parent exercises time-sharing at least 20 percent of the overnights in the year (73 overnights in the year), complete Nos. 10 through 21.”

And line 12 tells the user how to turn nights into a percentage: “multiply it by 100 and divide by 365.” So 73 nights is 73 ÷ 365 = 20.00%, exactly, and 72 nights is 19.73%. There is no rounding up from 72. Note the word “each”: the condition is about both parents. The parent with fewer nights is the one who has to reach 73, because the other parent, with more than half the year, is already past it.

The requirement is not optional when it applies. Section 61.30(1)(a) first sets the general rule that the guideline amount “presumptively establishes the amount the trier of fact must order,” and allows a variance of “plus or minus 5 percent” after considering all relevant factors, or more than 5% “only upon a written finding.” Then it carves out time-sharing:

“Notwithstanding the variance limitations of this section, the trier of fact must order payment of child support which varies from the guideline amount as provided in paragraph (11)(b) whenever any of the children are required by court order or mediation agreement to spend a substantial amount of time with either parent. This requirement applies to any living arrangement, whether temporary or permanent.”

The statute says “must”, and the last sentence extends the requirement to “any living arrangement, whether temporary or permanent.” Subparagraph 7 of (11)(b), covered below, lets the court deviate from the gross-up result on stated grounds.

The standard method, for comparison

The gross-up starts from the same numbers as the standard method, so it helps to see that first.

Each parent’s net income goes on worksheet line 1, and the two are added together (§61.30(5)). The combined figure is looked up in the schedule in §61.30(6), which runs from $800 to $10,000 of combined monthly net income in $50 rows, for one to six children. Above $10,000, §61.30(6)(b) says the obligation “is the minimum amount of support provided by the guidelines schedule plus the following percentages multiplied by the amount of income over $10,000”: 5.0% for one child, 7.5% for two, 9.5% for three, 11.0% for four, 12.0% for five and 12.5% for six. The worksheet calls the result line 2, the basic monthly obligation.

Each parent’s share is their net income divided by the combined net income (§61.30(9); line 3), and each parent’s dollar share is the schedule amount times that percentage (§61.30(10)(a); line 4). Child care (§61.30(7)) and the children’s health insurance and noncovered medical costs (§61.30(8)) are added and split the same way (lines 5 and 6). Amounts a parent actually pays toward those costs come off that parent’s figure (lines 7 and 8). Line 9 is the result: “MINIMUM CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION FOR EACH PARENT.”

Under the standard method, overnights never enter the calculation. A parent with 72 nights and a parent with 0 nights produce the same line 9.

The gross-up, step by step

Here is §61.30(11)(b), subparagraphs 1 through 6, with the Form 12.902(e) line each step becomes.

“1. In accordance with subsections (9) and (10), calculate the amount of support obligation apportioned to each parent without including day care and health insurance costs in the calculation and multiply the amount by 1.5.”

On the form this is two lines. Line 10 is “Basic Monthly Obligation x 150%,” which is line 2 × 1.5. Line 11, “Increased Basic Obligation for each parent,” splits line 10 by the line 3 income percentages.

“2. Calculate the percentage of overnight stays the child spends with each parent.”

Line 12: each parent’s nights × 100 ÷ 365.

“3. Multiply each parent’s support obligation as calculated in subparagraph 1. by the percentage of the other parent’s overnight stays with the child as calculated in subparagraph 2.”

Line 13: “Multiply line 11A by line 12B … Multiply line 11B by line 12A.” This is the cross-multiplication. Each parent’s increased obligation is weighted by the share of nights the child spends with the other parent, because that is the time the other parent is housing the child.

“4. The difference between the amounts calculated in subparagraph 3. shall be the monetary transfer necessary between the parents for the care of the child, subject to an adjustment for day care and health insurance expenses.”

“5. Pursuant to subsections (7) and (8), calculate the net amounts owed by each parent for the expenses incurred for day care and health insurance coverage for the child.”

“6. Adjust the support obligation owed by each parent pursuant to subparagraph 4. by crediting or debiting the amount calculated in subparagraph 5. This amount represents the child support which must be exchanged between the parents.”

Lines 14 through 21 carry out steps 4 to 6. We work through them with real numbers in the child care section below. Line 21, “Presumptive Child Support to Be Paid,” is the larger of lines 19 and 20 minus the smaller, entered “in the column for the parent that owes the larger amount of support.”

Why 1.5? The statute does not say. The February 2026 review of the guidelines prepared for the Legislature describes the current worksheet adjustment as one that “starts at 20% and assumes that duplicated costs are 50% for anyone above that level” (PDF p. 129). That is the consultants’ description, not statutory text.

Worked example: 72 nights versus 73

Take two parents with three children:

• Parent A has a net income of $12,000 a month.
• Parent B has a net income of $4,000 a month.
• The children live mainly with Parent B.
• No child care, no health insurance for the children, and no noncovered medical costs.

Combined net income is $16,000, which is above the schedule. The three-child figure at $10,000 is $2,795, and §61.30(6)(b) adds 9.5% of the $6,000 above $10,000, so line 2 is $3,365.00. Parent A’s share of combined income is 75%, and Parent B’s is 25%.

At 72 overnights for Parent A, the standard method applies. Parent A’s line 4 is $3,365.00 × 75% = $2,523.75, and with no add-ons that is also line 9. In our calculator, the standard method treats the line 9 of the parent the children do not mainly live with as the amount paid, so Parent A pays $2,523.75.

At 73 overnights for Parent A (292 for Parent B), each parent has at least 20%, and the gross-up applies:

Line	Parent A	Parent B
2 Basic obligation	$3,365.00
3 Share of income	75%	25%
10 Line 2 × 1.5	$5,047.50
11 Line 10 × line 3	$3,785.625	$1,261.875
12 Overnights ÷ 365	20% (73 nights)	80% (292 nights)
13 Line 11 × the other parent’s line 12	$3,785.625 × 80% = $3,028.50	$1,261.875 × 20% = $252.375
18 Add-ons owed	$0.00	$0.00
19 / 20	$3,028.50	$252.375
21 Difference	Parent A pays $2,776.13

The difference is $2,776.125, which rounds to $2,776.13. We carry every line at full precision and round only the final figure, which is also how our calculator works; Form 12.902(e) does not give a rounding rule. If you round line 13 to the cent first, you get $3,028.50 − $252.38 = $2,776.12, a one-cent difference that comes only from the order of rounding.

At the 73rd overnight the worksheet switches methods, and in this example the result is higher: $2,776.13 instead of $2,523.75, a difference of $252.38 a month.

The figure then falls as Parent A’s overnights rise further, because line 12B shrinks and line 12A grows:

Parent A’s overnights	Share of the year	Line 21 (Parent A pays)
72	19.73%	$2,523.75 (standard method)
73	20.00%	$2,776.13
110	30.14%	$2,264.46
146	40.00%	$1,766.63
182	49.86%	$1,268.79

Every figure in this post was produced by a script that reads the same schedule data our engine uses, and each worked figure was checked against our Florida engine’s own output, to the cent.

Why the number can go up

At 72 nights, the formula charges Parent A their income share of the schedule amount: 75% × $3,365.00. At 73 nights, it charges Parent A their income share of 1.5 times the schedule amount, weighted by Parent B’s 80% of nights, and then credits Parent B’s share of 1.5 times the schedule amount, weighted by Parent A’s 20%.

At exactly 73 nights, the weights are exactly 20% and 80%. Writing s for the paying parent’s income share, and leaving out child care and insurance, the gross-up comes to:

1.5 × (0.8 × s − 0.2 × (1 − s)) = 1.5s − 0.3 of the schedule amount.

The standard method is s of the schedule amount. The two are equal when s = 1.5s − 0.3, which is s = 60%. Above 60%, the gross-up at 73 nights is larger; below 60%, it is smaller. That is our algebra on the statute’s formula, not a statement from any court or agency, and it holds only at exactly 73 nights with no add-ons.

To see it in dollars, hold combined net income at $10,000 and one child (schedule amount $1,437.00), and move the split between the parents. In each row the paying parent goes from 72 to 73 overnights:

Paying parent’s share of income	At 72 nights	At 73 nights
40%	$574.80	$431.10
50%	$718.50	$646.65
60%	$862.20	$862.20
70%	$1,005.90	$1,077.75
80%	$1,149.60	$1,293.30

None of this tells anyone how many overnights a parenting plan should have. The statute takes the overnight count from the parenting plan, court-ordered schedule, or agreed arrangement, and runs the formula on whatever that count is. The court may deviate from the gross-up result, including on “the likelihood that either parent will actually exercise the time-sharing schedule” (§61.30(11)(b)7), and a schedule that is not regularly exercised is a ground to modify the order retroactively (§61.30(11)(c)). Both are covered below.

The 1.5 multiplier is the reason. It inflates the whole schedule amount before the overnight weights are applied, and at only 20% of nights, the weights do not take enough of it back for a high-share payer. As overnights rise toward half the year, the weights take back more, and the figure falls, as the table in the previous section shows.

Florida’s guidelines review describes the current threshold as a “cliff” and recommends replacing it, which we come back to below.

Child care and health insurance in the gross-up

Step 1 of §61.30(11)(b) builds the grossed-up obligation “without including day care and health insurance costs.” Those come back in at steps 5 and 6. On Form 12.902(e) they are lines 14 to 18:

• Line 14a is child care, 14b is the children’s health insurance (“only amounts actually paid for health insurance on the child(ren)”), 14c is noncovered medical, dental and prescription costs, and 14d is the total.
• Line 15 splits line 14d by the line 3 income percentages. Note that the add-ons are split by income only. The 1.5 multiplier and the overnight percentages do not touch them.
• Lines 16a to 16c and 17 are what each parent has actually paid toward those costs.
• Line 18 is “Line 15 minus line 17; enter any negative number as zero.”
• Line 19 is line 13A plus 18A; line 20 is line 13B plus 18B; line 21 is the difference.

Here is a second example with both costs in it:

• Two children. Parent A’s net income is $7,000, Parent B’s is $3,000, so combined is $10,000 and the schedule amount is $2,228.00. Shares are 70% and 30%.
• Parent A has 146 overnights (40%), Parent B 219 (60%).
• Child care is $500 a month, paid by Parent B. The children’s health insurance is $200 a month, paid by Parent A.

Line	Parent A	Parent B
10	$3,342.00
11	$2,339.40	$1,002.60
12	40%	60%
13	$2,339.40 × 60% = $1,403.64	$1,002.60 × 40% = $401.04
14d	$700.00
15 Share of 14d	$490.00	$210.00
17 Paid	$200.00	$500.00
15 − 17	$290.00	−$290.00
18 (negative entered as zero)	$290.00	$0.00
19 / 20	$1,693.64	$401.04
21	Parent A pays $1,292.60

Without the add-ons, line 21 would be $1,002.60. The add-ons move it by exactly $290.00, which is the amount Parent A’s share of the costs ($490.00) exceeds what Parent A paid ($200.00). It is also exactly what Parent B paid ($500.00) beyond Parent B’s share ($210.00).

That is what the zero rule on line 18 does. The two values of line 15 minus line 17 are the same $290.00 seen from each side. If Parent B’s −$290.00 were entered on line 20 instead of zero, line 20 would be $111.04, and line 21 would grow to $1,582.60, counting the same $290.00 twice. The statute’s words in step 6 are “crediting or debiting”; the form carries that out by putting the net amount on one side only.

Child care is limited by §61.30(7) to costs “incurred due to employment, job search, or education calculated to result in employment or to enhance income of current employment of either parent,” and they “may not exceed the level required to provide quality care from a licensed source.” Under §61.30(8), noncovered medical, dental and prescription costs are added “unless these expenses have been ordered to be separately paid on a percentage basis,” in which case they stay off line 14c.

Below 73 overnights

If either parent has fewer than 73 overnights, the worksheet stops at line 9. There is no partial gross-up and no sliding scale. Time-sharing below 20% appears in the statute only as one of the deviation factors in §61.30(11)(a), which begins “The court may adjust the total minimum child support award, or either or both parents’ share of the total minimum child support award, based upon the following deviation factors.” Factor 10 reads:

“The particular parenting plan, a court-ordered time-sharing schedule, or a time-sharing arrangement exercised by agreement of the parties, such as where the child spends a significant amount of time, but less than 20 percent of the overnights, with one parent, thereby reducing the financial expenditures incurred by the other parent; or the refusal of a parent to become involved in the activities of the child.”

The statute does not say what “a significant amount of time” is, how much an adjustment should be, or how to compute one. It is listed alongside ten other factors, including extraordinary medical or educational expenses, the age of the child, and support exceeding “55 percent of his or her gross income.” The general variance rule in §61.30(1)(a) still applies: within 5% of the guideline amount after considering all relevant factors, and beyond 5% “only upon a written finding explaining why ordering payment of such guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.”

Factor 10 is not a rarely used provision. The February 2026 guidelines review reports, in its analysis of support orders, that “18% of fathers had adjustments from the basic obligation” and that “Nearly 70% of these deviations were related to a Parenting Plan involving less than 20% visitation” (PDF p. 66). The same report states that “the current Child Support Guideline Worksheet only implements an adjustment for visitation at 20% or above overnight stays” (PDF p. 129). Whether any adjustment is made in a particular case, and how much, is for the court.

Other parts of (11)(b) and (11)(c)

Two more provisions sit next to the formula.

The court may still deviate from the gross-up result. Section 61.30(11)(b)7 says the court “may deviate from the child support amount calculated pursuant to subparagraph 6. based upon the deviation factors in paragraph (a), as well as the obligee parent’s low income and ability to maintain the basic necessities of the home for the child, the likelihood that either parent will actually exercise the time-sharing schedule set forth in the parenting plan, a court-ordered time-sharing schedule, or a time-sharing arrangement exercised by agreement of the parties, and whether all of the children are exercising the same time-sharing schedule.” Form 12.902(e) has a single overnight count for all the children, so a family where children have different schedules is outside what the worksheet expresses directly.

A schedule that is not exercised can reopen the order. Section 61.30(11)(c):

“A parent’s failure to regularly exercise the time-sharing schedule set forth in the parenting plan, a court-ordered time-sharing schedule, or a time-sharing arrangement exercised by agreement of the parties not caused by the other parent which resulted in the adjustment of the amount of child support pursuant to subparagraph (a)10. or paragraph (b) shall be deemed a substantial change of circumstances for purposes of modifying the child support award. A modification pursuant to this paragraph is retroactive to the date the noncustodial parent first failed to regularly exercise the court-ordered or agreed time-sharing schedule.”

The provision reaches adjustments made under either path: the factor 10 deviation (“subparagraph (a)10.”) and the gross-up (“paragraph (b)”).

Is any of this about to change?

Not by any law passed or filed so far. We checked on October 15, 2026:

• The statute text. The 2025 and 2026 editions of §61.30 on flsenate.gov are identical, and the section’s history note ends with chapter 2023-213.
• The 2026 session. The Florida Senate’s bill search, set to Senate and House bills, returns “0 Bills Found” for 2026 bills citing §61.30. The same search for §61.13 returns nine 2026 bills, and the last action on every one is that it died on March 13, 2026.
• The 2027 session. The same search for 2027 bills returns “0 Bills Found” for §61.30. The only 2027 bills filed by then were claim bills; general bills for the 2027 session had not yet been filed. An exact-phrase search for “child support guidelines” across both chambers returns zero bills for 2026 and for 2027.

The Legislature is required to review the schedule regularly. Section 61.30(16): “The Legislature shall review the guidelines schedule established in this section at least every 4 years beginning in 1997.” The most recent review is Quadrennial Review of the Florida Child Support Guidelines, Expanded Version, Report to the Florida Legislature, dated February 1, 2026, by economists at Florida State University, published by the Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research. On time-sharing, it recommends that “Visitation adjustments below 20% should be incorporated into the worksheet rather than treated as deviations from guidelines” (PDF p. 4), and its implementation chapter “explains how to implement a continuous visitation credit that removes the current 20 percent cliff” (PDF p. 125).

A report is a recommendation. Until the Legislature amends §61.30, the 73-overnight threshold and the 1.5 multiplier are the law, and Form 12.902(e) is the worksheet. If a bill is filed for the 2027 session, we will update this post.

What our calculator does, and does not, do

Our Florida child support calculator runs the Form 12.902(e) worksheet in line order. It asks for each parent’s gross income and works out net income, then picks the method from the overnights you enter: the standard method if either parent has fewer than 73, and lines 10 to 21 if each has at least 73. The overnight counts must add up to 365, because line 12 divides by 365.

When an entered overnight count is between 68 and 78, the result shows the worksheet figure at 72 and at 73 overnights side by side, with the note: “Both figures come from the same formula; neither is a suggestion.” Outside that window, it does not show the comparison. Below 73, it shows a text note that the guideline amount does not change and that a court may deviate under factor 10. It does not compute any adjustment, range or figure for time-sharing below 73 overnights, because the statute does not supply one.

It does not produce a completed or fileable Form 12.902(e). The estimate PDF follows the form’s line order, but it is an estimate, not the form.

If you are comparing states, our post on how timeshare is counted in California covers that state’s rule. It is a different statute, and none of its arithmetic applies in Florida.

Primary sources

• Fla. Stat. §61.30 (2026) at flsenate.gov. (1)(a) (presumption, the 5% band, and the mandatory time-sharing variance), (5) and (6) (combined net income and the schedule, including (6)(b) above $10,000), (7) and (8) (child care, health insurance, noncovered medical), (9) and (10) (income shares), (11)(a) (deviation factors, including factor 10), (11)(b) (the gross-up, subparagraphs 1 to 8), (11)(c) (failure to exercise time-sharing), and (16) (periodic review).
• Form 12.902(e), Child Support Guidelines Worksheet (06/25), Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form, on the Florida Courts site. The “Substantial Time-Sharing (GROSS UP METHOD)” heading and lines 10 to 21.
• Quadrennial Review of the Florida Child Support Guidelines (February 1, 2026), Office of Economic and Demographic Research, PDF. Page references above are PDF page numbers.
• Florida Senate bill search, 2026 bills citing §61.30 and 2027 bills citing §61.30, both read October 15, 2026.
• Fla. Stat. §454.23 at flsenate.gov and Rule 10-2.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Chapter 10, October 1, 2026 edition). Section 454.23 makes it a felony for a person not authorized to practice law in Florida to practice law there, and Rule 10-2.1(l) defines the unlicensed practice of law as “the practice of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida.” They are why this post explains the statute and the arithmetic and does not tell any reader what to do.

Statutes reviewed 2026-10-15 on flsenate.gov (2026 Florida Statutes). The §61.30 schedule in our engine was compared cell by cell against the 2026 statute page and the Form 12.902(e) chart the same day: 1,110 cells, no differences.