§3600 temporary spousal support: what the statute says, and what every county actually does

California has two completely different statutory regimes for spousal support, and conflating them is one of the most common, and most consequential, errors in pendente-lite practice. The first regime, Family Code §3600, governs temporary spousal support during the pendency of the dissolution. The second, Family Code §4320, governs permanent (post-judgment) support. They look related. They are not the same statute, they do not produce the same number, and they are computed by entirely different methods.

This post walks through §3600 specifically. What the statute authorizes; what discretion the court has; how the published county guideline formulas (Santa Clara, Alameda, and Marin) actually do the math; what Schulze held about using a temporary-support guideline for permanent support; and where the practitioner bench tools (XSpouse, Family Law Software, and the calculator we built) fit into the workflow.

If you are coming to this post because the §3600 number on your court order doesn’t match your DissoMaster printout, a common cause is the temporary/permanent confusion; another is which county formula was used. The first is structural, not arithmetic.

What §3600 actually says

§3600 reads, verbatim (from the current text at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov):

During the pendency of any proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the parties or under Division 8 (commencing with Section 3000) (custody of children) or in any proceeding where there is at issue the support of a minor child or a child for whom support is authorized under Section 3901 or 3910, the court may order (a) either spouse to pay any amount that is necessary for the support of the other spouse, consistent with the requirements of subdivisions (i) and (m) of Section 4320 and Section 4325, or (b) either or both parents to pay any amount necessary for the support of the child, as the case may be.

The statute was last amended by Stats. 2014, Ch. 82, Sec. 35 (SB 1306), effective January 1, 2015. It has not been substantively amended since.

Several things are worth noticing in that single sentence:

1. “During the pendency”, §3600 is a pendente lite statute. It runs only while the dissolution or separation case is pending, from filing through judgment. It is not the authority for post-judgment support.
2. “Any amount that is necessary”, the statute is permissive (“the court may order”). There is no statutory formula, no income table, no multiplier. The court’s discretion is bounded by the supported spouse’s need and the other spouse’s ability to pay (In re Marriage of Wittgrove (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1327), not by a formula.
3. “Consistent with the requirements of subdivisions (i) and (m) of Section 4320 and Section 4325”, only two of the §4320 factors are expressly imported into the §3600 analysis: §4320(i) (documented history of domestic violence) and §4320(m) (criminal abuse convictions). The rest of the §4320 checklist (earning capacity, marital standard of living, duration of marriage, age and health, tax consequences, hardship, self-support goal, any other factors the court determines are just and equitable) isn’t required for temporary support, though need and ability to pay, which overlap §4320(c) and (d), remain the touchstone under case law (Wittgrove). §4325 is the abuse-perpetrator presumption against support.

That last point is the structural surprise. Most non-attorneys (and a meaningful number of attorneys) assume §3600 temporary support requires the court to consider the full §4320 factor list. It doesn’t. §3600 expressly imports only the abuse-and-violence factors. The rest of the §4320 inquiry is reserved for the permanent-support analysis at judgment.

How counties actually do the math: three published local rules

Because §3600 contains no formula, California family courts have adopted local guideline formulas to estimate temporary spousal support. The county rules quoted below agree on the 40/50 base when no child support is ordered (Santa Clara adds a tax adjustment): 40% of the payor’s net monthly income minus 50% of the payee’s net monthly income. They part ways once child support is in the same order, and that is where the county changes the number. The state’s own calculator guide calls Santa Clara’s formula the one other counties most commonly adopt (quoted below).

These local formulas are not statutory. They have no §3600 status. They are presumptive starting points that the trial court may adopt or depart from in its discretion under §3600’s “any amount that is necessary” mandate. Schulze treats them as “temporary county guidelines”: tools for preserving the status quo pending trial, never a substitute for the §4320 analysis.

Santa Clara County publishes its formula in words, not algebra, in Santa Clara Family Rule 3(C) (“Temporary Spousal or Partner Support Formula”, effective January 1, 2011):

Temporary spousal or partner support is generally computed by taking 40% of the net income of the payor, minus 50% of the net income of the payee, adjusted for tax consequences. If there is child support, temporary spousal or partner support is calculated on net income not allocated to child support and/or child-related expenses.

The rule does not say how to measure the “net income not allocated to child support.” The court’s appendix of Discretionary Policy Statements, which says of itself that the policies “are not Local Rules and do not have the force of law”, adds that “The Court will use the local spousal or partner support formula at temporary spousal or partner support hearings” except where it “would be inequitable” or where “The demonstrated need for the requested support is below the formula amount.”

Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 5.70 is the only one of these three rules that writes the child-support case out as an equation. From the current Title 5 local rules (effective July 1, 2026), verbatim, including the stray “or” in subdivision (a):

The following discretionary guideline is adopted for temporary spousal support or partner support in marital and domestic partnership dissolution cases.

(a) Non-child support cases In cases where there is no child support, the guideline spousal or partner support is 40% of the net income of the payor or minus 50% of the net income of the payee.

(b) Child support cases In cases where there is to be child support, the guideline spousal or partner support uses the components set forth in Family Code sections 4055 through 4069 in the following formula:

SS = [HN-(HN) (M) (K) (1+H %)] [.35] - [LN-(LN) (M) (K) (1+H %)] [.4]

(If H% is greater than 50%, use 2-H% instead of 1+H%)

(M = Fam. Code §4055(b)(4) child multiplier.)

So with child support, Alameda removes the child share from each parent’s net and then applies 35% and 40%, not 40% and 50%. HN and LN are the high and low earners’ nets, M is the §4055(b)(4) multiplier for more than one child (1.6 for two children, 2 for three), and H% is the high earner’s timeshare. One wrinkle: current §4055(b)(3) defines K as “one plus H% (if H% is less than or equal to 50 percent) or two minus H% (if H% is greater than 50 percent) times the following fraction”, so §4055’s K already contains the timeshare term that Rule 5.70(b) multiplies in again. CleanCalc reads the rule’s K as the §4055(b)(3) fraction alone, so the timeshare term counts once. (Rule 5.70 was adopted as rule 11.2 effective May 19, 1998, and amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2008, per the history line under the rule. Subdivision (c) adds that in domestic partnership cases “the court will adjust the formula to account for tax treatment under state and federal laws if necessary.”)

Marin County Local Rule 7.14(B) publishes a third version. From Marin’s July 2026 rules:

1. In cases where the recipient of spousal support is not receiving child support from the same payor, the presumed temporary spousal support will be 40% of the net income of the payor less 50% of the net income of the payee.

2. In cases where the recipient of spousal support is also the recipient of child support from the same payor, the presumed temporary spousal support will be 35% of the net income of the payor (after deduction of child support), less 45% of the net income of the payee (without addition of child support).

Marin subtracts the child support dollars from the payor’s net only, then applies 35% and 45%. The rule does not say whether “child support” includes the §4062 add-ons (childcare, uninsured health costs, and the rest). Family Code §4062 says the court “shall order the following as additional child support” in subdivision (a) and “may order the following as additional child support” in subdivision (b). CleanCalc therefore reads “child support” in Rule 7.14(B)(2) as the basic support plus the payor’s share of the §4062 add-ons, mandatory and discretionary. That is CleanCalc’s reading of the rule, not language the rule contains. Rule 7.14(A) also says that “DCSS uses the California Guideline Child Support Calculator to calculate guideline child support and temporary spousal support”, while “All family law departments except DCSS use Xspouse or Family Law Software program to calculate guideline child support and temporary spousal support.”

Santa Cruz County Local Rule 3.2.01 imports Alameda’s guideline by reference. From the Santa Cruz rules effective July 1, 2026:

The Court’s temporary spousal support guideline is based on the current Alameda County guidelines using the XSpouse program. The suggested schedule is a guideline only and the Court will exercise its discretion and depart from the schedule upon a showing of good cause.

What the state’s calculator does with these rules

The California Department of Child Support Services’ Guideline Calculator offers temporary spousal support as an option. Its user guide (file dated July 21, 2026) says: “There are five options available for calculating temporary support: Alameda, Humboldt, Kings, Marin and Santa Clara. Each county represents a particular spousal support formula that has been officially adopted by that county. Other counties usually adopt one of these formulas, the most common being Santa Clara. Contact your local court to determine which temporary spousal support formula has been adopted for your county.”

The guide does not print the formulas themselves. We ran test cases through the calculator on October 9, 2026 and compared the results. “Match” below means to within $1 in every case we ran: 21 runs, seven per county (1 to 3 children, both child-support directions, one timeshare of 17.8%, single filers, no add-ons). It describes what DCSS returned, not a method DCSS publishes.

• Santa Clara, with child support: DCSS’s results matched (1 − M·K·T) × (0.40 × HN − 0.50 × LN), where K is the §4055(b)(3) fraction and T is 1 + H% (or 2 − H% above 50%). In words, each net is reduced by the same share before the 40/50 percentages apply.
• Alameda, with child support: DCSS’s results matched Rule 5.70(b) as written, with K read as the §4055(b)(3) fraction.
• Marin, with child support: DCSS’s results do not follow Rule 7.14(B)(2)‘s text. They matched (1 − M·K·T) × (0.35 × HN − 0.45 × LN), which removes a child share from both nets instead of deducting the child support dollars from the payor’s net (in CleanCalc’s reading, basic support plus the payor’s share of any §4062 add-ons).

What CleanCalc’s calculator does

Our calculator offers the same three county methods and follows each county’s own text, falling back to DCSS only where the county text leaves the math open:

• Alameda: Rule 5.70(a) with no child support; Rule 5.70(b) with child support, K read as the §4055(b)(3) fraction.
• Marin: Rule 7.14(B)(1) with no child support; Rule 7.14(B)(2) when the spousal-support recipient also receives the child support. When §4055 makes the spousal-support recipient the child-support payor, the recipient is not “receiving child support from the same payor”, and the calculator applies the (B)(1) 40/50 text. Under (B)(2), the child support the calculator deducts is the basic support plus the payor’s share of any §4062 add-ons, per the reading above. Our Marin results will therefore differ from DCSS’s whenever child support is ordered.
• Santa Clara: 40/50 with no child support. With child support, Family Rule 3(C) does not say how to measure the “net income not allocated to child support”, so the calculator computes it the way the DCSS Guideline Calculator does in the cases we ran, (1 − M·K·T) × (0.40 × HN − 0.50 × LN).

Three limits apply. The calculator models cash flow only: it does not apply Santa Clara’s “adjusted for tax consequences” step. Its Santa Clara computation removes the child-support share only; it does not separately remove the “child-related expenses” (the §4062 add-ons) that Rule 3(C) also mentions. And each result is a guideline estimate the court may depart from, as every one of these rules says.

The temporary / permanent distinction, and why Schulze matters

In re Marriage of Schulze (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 519 is the case practitioners reach for when the question is whether a temporary-support guideline can do double duty for permanent support. The answer is no. Verbatim from Schulze:

In light of the different legal purposes for each kind of support order and the reality that temporary support will tend to be higher than permanent support, In re Marriage of Olson, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th 1, specifically warned against using temporary spousal support guidelines in a computer program assigned the task of determining permanent support.

And:

Section 4320 clearly contemplates a ground-up examination of the need for and appropriate level of permanent spousal support, rather than beginning with a figure pegged to a proposed temporary support order.

The load-bearing point: a permanent-support order computed by running the §3600 temporary formula and calling it permanent is reversible error. The court has to do a separate §4320-factor analysis, not just relabel the temporary figure.

Why does temporary support tend to be higher? Because the temporary regime is preserving the status quo during a stressful period when the marital estate is paying for two households. The permanent regime under §4320 contemplates the recipient transitioning toward self-support (factor (l), “the goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time”), the ability-to-pay analysis at factor (c), and several others that pull the permanent figure downward relative to a §3600-style “needs of the moment” computation.

Because no calculator can responsibly compute permanent spousal support, that’s the Schulze prohibition, our calculator computes only temporary support, with the §4320 fourteen-factor list rendered as a checklist on the result page for downstream practitioner work. We have written separately about the DissoMaster sunset and the post-2025 practitioner landscape, for any case headed toward judgment, the §4320 ground-up analysis lives entirely outside the temporary-spousal calculator.

A worked example

Sanitized fact pattern. Both spouses are W-2 employees. No child support order in place (the dissolution is between spouses with no minor children).

• Payor spouse: $9,000/month net disposable income.
• Payee spouse: $3,000/month net disposable income.

No-child-support case (Alameda Rule 5.70(a), Marin Rule 7.14(B)(1), and the 40/50 base of Santa Clara Family Rule 3(C)):

Temporary spousal support = 40% × payor’s net − 50% × payee’s net = 40% × $9,000 − 50% × $3,000 = $3,600 − $1,500 = $2,100/month

That is the guideline figure under the Alameda and Marin texts. Santa Clara’s rule starts from the same 40/50 arithmetic and then says “adjusted for tax consequences”, so its figure can differ once taxes are modeled. Every one of these rules is a guideline: the court may depart from it, and §3600’s “any amount that is necessary” language gives the court substantial latitude to do so.

With child support, the three counties diverge. Take a second case: two children, the higher earner has them 17.8% of the time, net incomes of $7,065 (HN) and $3,467 (LN), and §4055 child support of $2,371 a month from the higher earner. Those §4055 components are:

• TN = $7,065 + $3,467 = $10,532, so the §4055(b)(3) fraction (the K used below) is 0.10 + 1,499 / 10,532 = 0.24233
• T = 1 + H% = 1.178
• M = 1.6 (two children)
• M × K × T = 1.6 × 0.24233 × 1.178 = 0.45674, so each net keeps 1 − 0.45674 = 0.54326 of itself
• Check: §4055 child support = 1.6 × (1.178 × 0.24233) × [$7,065 − 0.178 × $10,532] = 1.6 × 0.28546 × $5,190.30 = $2,371

Then:

Santa Clara (DCSS form): 0.54326 × (0.40 × $7,065 − 0.50 × $3,467) = 0.54326 × ($2,826.00 − $1,733.50) = 0.54326 × $1,092.50 = $594/month

Alameda Rule 5.70(b): 0.35 × ($7,065 × 0.54326) − 0.40 × ($3,467 × 0.54326) = 0.35 × $3,838.13 − 0.40 × $1,883.48 = $1,343.35 − $753.39 = $590/month

Marin Rule 7.14(B)(2): 0.35 × ($7,065 − $2,371) − 0.45 × $3,467 = 0.35 × $4,694 − $1,560.15 = $1,642.90 − $1,560.15 = $83/month

This example has no §4062 add-ons, so the child support deducted under 7.14(B)(2) is the $2,371 basic support alone. If add-ons were ordered, CleanCalc would also deduct the payor’s share of them.

The DCSS Guideline Calculator, given wages that produce these same nets (October 9, 2026), returned $594 for Santa Clara, $590 for Alameda, and $496 for Marin. The Santa Clara and Alameda figures equal the hand computations above. The Marin figure equals 0.54326 × (0.35 × $7,065 − 0.45 × $3,467) = $495.78, rounded to $496, not the 7.14(B)(2) text. This is one of the 21 runs described earlier; across those runs DCSS matched these forms to within $1, which shows what it returned, not a method it publishes.

What changes the answer:

• A documented history of domestic violence (§4320(i)): the court may reduce or deny the payee’s temporary support if the payee was the perpetrator, or increase it if the payor was. Imported into §3600 explicitly.
• A criminal conviction for abuse (§4320(m)), same analysis, stronger statutory hook via §4325’s presumption against awarding support to a convicted abuser.
• A meaningful disparity between actual cash flow and the W-2 NDI figures, when one spouse has significant non-W-2 income that the W-2 number doesn’t capture, the temporary court can look behind the W-2 figures. The §4320 earning-capacity analysis under factor (a) does not import, but §3600’s “any amount necessary” language is broad enough to let the court adjust.
• The presence of child support in the same order: the formula changes (Alameda 5.70(b) removes a §4055 child share and applies 35/40; Marin 7.14(B)(2) deducts the child support from the payor’s net, which CleanCalc reads as including the payor’s share of §4062 add-ons, and applies 35/45; Santa Clara 3(C) works from “net income not allocated to child support”). As the second example shows, the combined-order math is where the local-rule variation matters most.

A note on tax treatment

One structural change since the 2017 federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act significantly affects §3600 temporary spousal support, and it is worth flagging because it surfaces in nearly every post-2018 case. For divorce or separation instruments executed after December 31, 2018, spousal support is no longer deductible by the payor and no longer includible in income by the payee for federal tax purposes. California held out for seven more years. SB 711 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 231), signed October 1, 2025, conforms California to the TCJA rule for divorce or separation instruments executed after December 31, 2025, and for older instruments modified after that date if the modification expressly adopts it. For those, spousal support is neither deductible to the payor nor taxable to the payee on the California return either. Instruments executed on or before December 31, 2025 keep the old California treatment: deductible by the payor, includible by the payee.

The practical consequence: pre-TCJA spousal support orders used to be “above-the-line” deductible on the payor’s federal return, which made the after-tax cost of paying spousal support roughly proportional to the payor’s combined federal-and-state marginal rate. Post-TCJA the federal subsidy is gone, and for California instruments executed after 2025 the state deduction is gone too: the payor pays spousal support entirely from after-tax dollars.

That shift made the 40/50 (or county-variant) guideline formula meaningfully more expensive for the payor in after-tax terms than the same guideline figure produced under the old rules. The formulas themselves were not rewritten for it: Alameda Rule 5.70, last amended effective January 1, 2008, still applies 40/50 to net incomes with no child support (5.70(a)) and 35/40 after removing the child share with child support (5.70(b)), with a tax adjustment written only for domestic partnership cases (5.70(c)). Santa Clara’s Family Rule 3(C), effective January 1, 2011, builds “adjusted for tax consequences” into its 40/50 computation. Any departure for tax mismatch is a case-by-case §3600 call.

What this post is not

This is an engineering walk-through of §3600’s statutory authority, the local guideline formulas California family courts use to estimate temporary spousal support, and the Schulze prohibition on using those formulas to compute permanent support. It is not legal advice. §3600 motions implicate domestic-violence findings under §4320(i) and §4325, tax treatment under federal post-TCJA rules and California’s SB 711 conformity, and substantive judgment about what is “necessary” in the specific case, all of which benefit from a licensed California family-law attorney’s input. If your dissolution involves any of the above, attorney consultation before the §3600 motion is genuinely load-bearing.

Two related pieces worth reading alongside this one: our piece on the DissoMaster sunset (because the bench-tool replacement question matters for §3600 practice just as much as for §4055 practice), and our §4058 self-employment math walk-through (because the “net monthly income” inputs to the §3600 formula are §4059 NDI figures, and they are computed the same way regardless of whether the case ends up on the §3600 temporary side or the §4320 permanent side).

The statute text quoted above was current as of the statute_as_of date in this post’s frontmatter; we re-verify all citations quarterly. The page footer’s disclaimer applies to every section above.