§4062 mandatory add-ons: childcare and uninsured medical, apportioned the right way

The §4055 guideline formula we walked through in the SB 343 K-table post computes a monthly support number. That number is most of the answer. It is not all of the answer.

California Family Code §4062 adds two categories of expense on top of the §4055 amount: childcare costs related to employment or job training, and reasonable uninsured health-care expenses for the children. The statute calls them “additional child support”; the Judicial Council’s order form (FL-342) labels the §4062(a) pair “mandatory additional child support,” and practitioners shorten that to mandatory add-ons, meaning the court is required to order them, separately from the guideline figure, in any case where they apply. §4061 controls how they are apportioned between the parents, and the apportionment rule is more nuanced than the “split it 50/50” intuition most people walk in with. Since September 1, 2024, the default isn’t 50/50 at all.

This post is the §4062 / §4061 walk-through. What the statute mandates, what counts (and what doesn’t), how the apportionment math actually works, and the practical gotchas that turn up when an order has to specify monthly amounts. The post complements the §4057 deviation piece, when §4062 doesn’t fully cover a child’s actual costs, the §4057(b)(6)(C) “extraordinary needs” deviation is the statutory bridge.

What §4062 actually says

§4062 reads, verbatim (from the current text at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov):

(a) The court shall order the following as additional child support:

(1) Childcare costs, if those expenses are actually incurred, related to employment or to reasonably necessary education or training for employment skills, as described in Section 4063, unless those costs are specifically included in the guideline calculation itself.

(2) The reasonable uninsured health care costs for the children as provided in Section 4063.

(b) The court may order the following as additional child support:

(1) Costs related to the educational or other special needs of the children.

(2) Travel expenses for visitation.

(c) This section shall be operative September 1, 2024.

The current version was enacted by SB 343 (Stats. 2023, Ch. 213), operative September 1, 2024.

The structure is two-tier. Section (a) is mandatory, “the court shall order”, for two specific categories. Section (b) is permissive, “the court may order”, for two others. The mandatory categories matter most in practice because they show up in nearly every case with minor children: someone has childcare costs, and somebody is going to need a doctor’s visit the insurance doesn’t fully cover.

The statute’s spareness is intentional. The categories are described in broad terms (childcare “related to” employment; “reasonable” uninsured health care costs) and the operational details, which expenses count, what “reasonable” means, when an expense is “uninsured,” how the parties document it, fall to the court’s case-by-case discretion. The boundaries get litigated. They are not self-executing.

§4061: how mandatory add-ons are apportioned

§4062 says the court must order add-ons. §4061 says how to split them. Verbatim from the current §4061:

(a) If there needs to be an apportionment of expenses pursuant to Section 4062, the expenses shall be divided in proportion to the parents’ net incomes as adjusted pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d), unless a party requests or the court finds on its own motion that expenses should be divided in a different manner.

(b)(1) The basic child support obligation shall first be computed using the formula set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 4055, as adjusted for any appropriate rebuttal factors in subdivision (b) of Section 4057.

(2) Any additional child support required for expenses pursuant to Section 4062 shall thereafter be ordered to be paid by the parents in proportion to their net disposable incomes as adjusted pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d).

(d) For purposes of computing the adjusted net disposable income of the parent paying child support for allocating any additional expenses pursuant to Section 4062, the net disposable income of the parent paying child support shall be reduced by the amount of any basic child support ordered to be paid under subdivision (a) of Section 4055. However, the net disposable income of the parent receiving child support shall not be increased by any amount of child support received.

That is the operative rule, with one important wrinkle in subdivision (d): before computing shares, the court reduces the child-support payor’s NDI by the basic §4055 support they pay. The recipient’s NDI is not increased by the support received; the statute says so expressly. (Subdivision (c) does the parallel shift for spousal support, if any.)

So §4061’s algorithm is:

1. Default: split all §4062 add-ons, mandatory (a) and discretionary (b) alike, in proportion to the parents’ net incomes as adjusted by §4061(c) (spousal support) and §4061(d) (basic child support).
2. Different split: only if a party requests it or the court finds, on its own motion, that the expenses should be divided differently.
3. Order of operations: compute the §4055 obligation (with any §4057(b) rebuttal) first, then allocate the add-ons.

The gate now runs the other way from the pre-2024 rule. Since September 1, 2024, the income-proportional split is the default; a parent who wants 50/50 (or anything else) has to ask for it, or the court has to find on its own motion that a different division fits the case.

What counts (and what doesn’t)

§4062(a)(1) childcare

The statute requires that childcare be “related to employment or to reasonably necessary education or training for employment skills.” Three categories generally qualify without controversy:

• After-school programs while the custodial parent works.
• Day care during the workday for younger children.
• Childcare during job training or education that leads to employment (community college coursework toward a credential, vocational training, etc.).

Categories that do not qualify under (a)(1):

• Babysitting for a parent’s social activities or personal time.
• Sports, music lessons, or enrichment activities, these are not “childcare related to employment” even if they happen during work hours. They might qualify under §4062(b)(1) educational/special-needs add-ons at the court’s discretion.
• Costs incurred by a parent during their custody time but not for the purpose of enabling them to work.

The practical evidence question is “what is this expense actually for?”, and the burden is on the parent claiming the add-on to document the work-related purpose, though once the purpose is shown, §4063(d) presumes the amount actually paid is reasonable.

§4062(a)(2) uninsured medical

§4063 doesn’t define “uninsured health care costs” by category; in practice the term covers the children’s out-of-pocket medical, dental, vision, mental-health, and prescription costs after insurance pays its share. Categories that consistently qualify:

• Insurance deductibles and copays attributable to the children’s care.
• Out-of-pocket prescription costs for the children’s medications.
• Orthodontia not covered by dental insurance.
• Mental-health therapy and counseling.
• Co-insurance amounts the family pays before insurance kicks in.

The “reasonable” qualifier matters at the margins, but §4063(d) presumes costs actually paid are reasonable, so the fight is usually over the exceptions: a parent who buys extra coverage or goes outside the court-ordered plan’s preferred providers bears the excess alone (§4063(e)(2), (f)(2)), unless the court-ordered coverage was inadequate or an emergency intervened. Documented diagnostic and treatment costs for the children’s actual conditions do qualify, even when they are large.

§4063 also imposes a procedural clock: the parent who incurs or pays the cost must give the other parent an itemized statement within a reasonable time, and no more than 90 days after the cost accrues. Sleeping on a claim for months and then demanding reimbursement is one of the recurring §4063 gotchas.

The math, with a worked example

A real fact pattern, sanitized:

• Parent A: net disposable income $7,000/month, 30% custody timeshare.
• Parent B: net disposable income $3,000/month, 70% custody (primary).
• Two children, one in after-school care at $600/month, both kids’ uninsured medical averaging $200/month combined across deductibles, copays, and prescriptions.
• TN = $10,000. Post-SB-343 §4055 K-band at TN = $10,000 → 0.250 income fraction (the new $5,001–$10,000 band).
• Timeshare multiplier for H% = 0.30 → 1.30.
• K = 1.30 × 0.25 = 0.325.
• Multi-child multiplier for two kids → 1.6.

Run the §4055 formula. CS = 0.325 × ($7,000 − 0.30 × $10,000) × 1.6 = 0.325 × $4,000 × 1.6 = $2,080/month in guideline support. (Our calculator confirms this guideline figure end-to-end on the post-SB-343 K-table.)

Now apply §4062(a). Total §4062(a) add-ons = $600 childcare + $200 uninsured medical = $800/month.

Default §4061(a) split (proportional to adjusted NDI): the court first adjusts NDI. Parent A’s adjusted NDI = $7,000 − $2,080 = $4,920. Parent B’s NDI stays at $3,000, because §4061(d) bars adding child support received. Total adjusted NDI = $7,920. Parent A’s share = $4,920 / $7,920 = 62.1%. Parent B’s share = $3,000 / $7,920 = 37.9%.

Parent A’s add-on contribution: 62.1% × $800 = $497/month. Parent B’s add-on contribution: 37.9% × $800 = $303/month.

A 50/50 split ($400 each) applies only if a party requests it or the court so finds.

Notice what the §4061(d) adjustment does. On raw NDI, Parent A would carry 70% of the add-ons ($560). Subtracting the guideline support Parent A already pays drops that to 62.1% ($497), because the payor’s income shrinks while the recipient’s is not grossed up. The adjustment narrows the gap; it doesn’t erase it.

Our calculator applies the same §4061(d) adjustment: it reduces the child support payor’s net by the basic §4055 support before splitting the add-ons, leaves the recipient’s net alone, and also applies the §4061(c) spousal-support shift when you include temporary spousal support. Given the net incomes in this example, its add-on engine splits the $800 as $497 and $303.

The strategic implication: since 2024 the proportional split is the default, so the parent who wants 50/50 (usually the higher earner) is the one who has to ask.

§4063: the reimbursement procedure most parties miss

§4062(a)(2) tells you what counts. §4063 tells you what you have to do when one parent has paid an uninsured medical expense and the other parent’s share is owed.

The statute requires the paying parent to send an itemized statement within a reasonable time, and no more than 90 days after the cost accrues. The other parent must pay within the period the order sets (§4063(a)(2) requires the order to set one), or, if none, within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days from notification. A parent who disputes the charge still has to pay first, then seek judicial relief under §4063 and §290.

Practical failure modes the cases see repeatedly:

• The custodial parent accumulates a year of pediatrician copays and prescription costs without sending itemized statements, then files a request for $4,000 in back-reimbursement at a subsequent hearing. That runs straight into §4063(b)‘s 90-day itemization requirement.
• The non-custodial parent receives an itemized statement, ignores it, then disputes the charges six months later when the issue surfaces at a review hearing. Under §4063(b)(4) the correct move was to pay and then seek relief; ignoring the statement exposes the non-paying parent to an enforcement motion and, under §4063(c), filing costs and attorney’s fees.
• Either parent pays a non-network provider out of pocket without first checking whether insurance would have covered the cost in-network. The parent who went out of network bears the avoidable cost differential (§4063(f)(2)).

The §4063 procedural discipline is more litigated than most people expect. Cleaning up the reimbursement workflow, itemized statements every month, prompt response within the 30-day window, eliminates the bulk of the §4063 dispute volume.

Common gotchas

A short list of the §4062 / §4061 issues that turn up most often:

• Confusing §4062(a)(1) childcare with §4062(b)(1) educational add-ons. Private school tuition, tutoring, and enrichment programs are not §4062(a)(1) childcare, they’re §4062(b)(1) educational/special-needs add-ons, which are permissive (the court “may” order them) rather than mandatory. The same monthly invoice may qualify under different statutory authority depending on whether the program is enabling a parent to work or developing the child’s education.
• Assuming the split is 50/50. Since SB 343 took effect September 1, 2024, §4061(a) divides §4062 expenses in proportion to adjusted net incomes by default. A parent who wants an equal (or other) split has to request it, or the court has to find on its own motion that a different division is appropriate. Pre-2024 orders and commentary describe the old 50/50 default.
• Treating new spouse income as part of NDI for §4061 apportionment. A new spouse’s wages can affect the tax calculation under In re Marriage of Carlsen (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 212 but, per §4057.5, do not become the parent’s own NDI for §4061 apportionment. Add-on shares are computed on each parent’s own adjusted NDI, not on a household-level figure.
• Missing the §4061(d) adjustment. The proportional split runs on adjusted NDI: subtract the basic §4055 support from the payor’s NDI and leave the recipient’s alone. Skipping the step overstates the payor’s share: 70% instead of 62.1% in the example above. If spousal support is in play, §4061(c) separately shifts it from payor to payee.
• Not specifying a monthly amount. §4062(a) orders that simply say “the parents shall share in childcare and uninsured medical” without a monthly dollar amount create enforceability problems, and §4063(a)(2) requires the order to state the reimbursement period. The order should specify either a monthly average (e.g., “$497/month toward childcare and uninsured medical to be paid by Parent A on the 1st of each month”) or an itemized-bill reimbursement mechanism under §4063, preferably both, with the monthly figure as a baseline and §4063 reconciliation true-ups quarterly.

When §4062 doesn’t cover the actual cost, and §4057 takes over

§4062(a)(2) captures “reasonable” uninsured health-care costs. It does not capture all of the children’s costs, even when those costs are documented and large. Specifically, special-needs care, therapies, equipment, specialists, developmental services, often exceeds what a court will treat as “reasonable” routine medical care under §4062.

When that happens, the statutory bridge is §4057(b)(6)(C): the “extraordinary needs” deviation we walked through in the §4057 deviation post. §4057(b)(6)(C) authorizes an upward deviation from the §4055 guideline figure to fund documented additional costs the §4062 add-on regime doesn’t fully reach.

The procedural distinction matters. §4062 add-ons are separate from the §4055 guideline figure and are ordered as an addition to it. A §4057(b)(6)(C) deviation modifies the §4055 figure itself. They can stack: a court can order both, but they live on different lines of the FL-342 order attachment (add-ons at item 6b or 6c, a non-guideline order at item 6d), and a motion has to specify which authority it is invoking. Pleading “increase the support for special-needs costs” is not enough; the motion has to identify whether the relief is sought under §4062, under §4057(b)(6)(C), or both.

What this post is not

This is an engineering walk-through of §4062 / §4061 / §4063 and the §4055 ↔ §4057 interaction that determines how mandatory add-ons get into a child-support order. It is not legal advice. The choice of whether to request §4061(b) apportionment, what evidence to produce for “reasonable” uninsured medical, and whether to pursue a §4062 add-on, a §4057(b)(6)(C) deviation, or both, depends on case-specific facts that a licensed California family-law attorney can evaluate. If your case has meaningful add-on costs or income asymmetry, a substantive attorney review before motion or stipulation is genuinely load-bearing.

Two related pieces worth reading alongside this one: our walk-through of the §4055 K-table changes under SB 343 (because the §4055 figure is the input to every §4061(d) adjustment), and our piece on §4057 deviation (because when §4062 doesn’t reach the actual costs, §4057(b)(6)(C) is where the case goes).

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.