More than $11,700 a month in net resources in Texas: how child support above the cap is calculated (§154.126)

This post explains how the Texas Family Code treats child support when an obligor’s monthly net resources exceed the statutory cap. 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. Above the cap, the outcome turns on evidence about a particular child and findings a particular court makes. A Texas family lawyer can advise on a specific case. What follows is the statute and the arithmetic it describes.

Many explanations of Texas child support stop at one sentence: the guideline is a percentage of net resources, capped at a monthly figure. For a high earner that leaves out the part that matters. The cap does not end the analysis. It changes which rule applies to the money above it, and that rule works nothing like a percentage.

Obligors ask whether the 20% keeps running on everything they earn. Parents receiving support ask whether the capped figure is the most a court can order. The statute answers both, and the answer to both is no.

The short version

• The §154.125 percentages apply to monthly net resources up to the cap. The current cap is $11,700, effective September 1, 2025.
• On net resources above the cap, the percentage does not continue. Under §154.126(a), the court “may order additional amounts of child support as appropriate, depending on the income of the parties and the proven needs of the child.”
• §154.126(b) prescribes the arithmetic: subtract the presumptive award from the child’s proven total needs, then allocate the remainder between the parties “according to the circumstances of the parties.”
• There is a ceiling, and it is not 20% of everything. The obligor cannot be required to pay more than “the greater of the presumptive amount or the amount equal to 100 percent of the proven needs of the child.”
• What counts as a proven need is a question of evidence, decided by the court. No formula answers it.

Where the cap comes from

Section 154.125(a) does not state a dollar figure. It says the guidelines “are specifically designed to apply to situations in which the obligor’s monthly net resources are not greater than the maximum amount of net resources to which the statutory guidelines are applicable, as most recently published by the Title IV-D agency in the Texas Register.”

The Title IV-D agency in Texas is the Office of the Attorney General. Subsection (a-1) sets the schedule: the amount “is adjusted every six years as necessary to reflect inflation,” computed from “the percentage change in the consumer price index during the 72-month period preceding March 1 of the year of the adjustment, as rounded to the nearest $50 increment,” and published in the Texas Register “before September 1 of the year in which the adjustment takes effect.”

The most recent adjustment is documented in the OAG’s own 2025 Revised Tax Charts, which are marked “Effective September 1, 2025” and state: “On August 15, 2025, the Title IV-D agency adjusted the ‘Cap’ from $9,200 to $11,700.” The OAG’s monthly child support calculator applies the same figure; its result line is labeled “Projected Monthly Child Support Obligation for net resources up to $11,700,” and the page states: “This calculator does not calculate support in excess of the $11,700 net resource amount per Texas Family Code Sec. 154.125(a).”

Below the cap, §154.125(b) supplies the familiar schedule: 20% of net resources for one child, 25% for two, 30% for three, 35% for four, 40% for five. (A separate low-income schedule in §154.125(c) applies under $1,000 a month.) So the most the percentage alone can produce for one child is 20% of $11,700, or $2,340 per month. For two children it is 25% of $11,700, or $2,925.

One reminder: every figure in this post is net resources, not salary. Net resources is a statutory measure under §154.062 and is usually well below gross pay, so a high salary does not by itself put an obligor above the cap. We walked through that computation in a separate post.

What §154.126 actually says

Section 154.126 is short enough to read whole. Subsection (a):

“If the obligor’s net resources exceed the amount provided by Section 154.125(a), the court shall presumptively apply the percentage guidelines to the portion of the obligor’s net resources that does not exceed that amount. Without further reference to the percentage recommended by these guidelines, the court may order additional amounts of child support as appropriate, depending on the income of the parties and the proven needs of the child.”

Subsection (b):

“The proper calculation of a child support order that exceeds the presumptive amount established for the portion of the obligor’s net resources provided by Section 154.125(a) requires that the entire amount of the presumptive award be subtracted from the proven total needs of the child. After the presumptive award is subtracted, the court shall allocate between the parties the responsibility to meet the additional needs of the child according to the circumstances of the parties. However, in no event may the obligor be required to pay more child support than the greater of the presumptive amount or the amount equal to 100 percent of the proven needs of the child.”

Four things are packed into those two paragraphs.

The presumptive award is computed on capped resources. The “shall presumptively apply” language means the starting point for a $20,000-a-month obligor is the same as for an $11,700-a-month obligor: the percentage times $11,700.

Anything above that is discretionary and needs-based. “May order” is permissive, and “without further reference to the percentage” means the 20% does not follow the money above the cap. The named inputs are “the income of the parties,” which includes the party receiving support, and “the proven needs of the child.”

The computation is a subtraction followed by an allocation. The court subtracts the “entire amount of the presumptive award” from the child’s “proven total needs.” Whatever is left is not automatically assigned to the obligor. The court allocates it between the parties “according to the circumstances of the parties.”

The ceiling is needs, not income. The final sentence caps the obligor’s total at the greater of two numbers: the presumptive amount, or 100% of the child’s proven needs. Notice what is not in that sentence. It does not say the obligor can pay up to the percentage of total net resources. A parent with $50,000 a month in net resources and a child whose proven needs are $3,000 the ceiling in this subsection’s text would be $3,000.

Worked example: one child, $20,000 a month

Take an obligor with $20,000 a month in net resources and one child before the court.

Step 1: the presumptive award. 20% × $11,700 = $2,340. The $8,300 above the cap does not enter this step.

For comparison, 20% of the full $20,000 would be $4,000. That figure appears nowhere in §154.126.

What happens next depends entirely on the child’s proven total needs, so here are three scenarios. The needs figures are hypothetical inputs, chosen to show the mechanics. They are not estimates of what any child needs or what any court would find.

Scenario A: proven needs of $2,000.

• Proven needs minus presumptive award: $2,000 − $2,340 = −$340.
• There are no additional needs to allocate, because the presumptive award already exceeds the proven needs.
• Ceiling: the greater of $2,340 and $2,000 is $2,340.

§154.126 produces nothing above the presumptive amount here. The “greater of” wording also means the needs ceiling does not, by itself, pull the obligation below $2,340. Whether a court could order less than the guideline amount is a different question, governed by the rebuttable presumption in §154.122 and the factors in §154.123, not by §154.126.

Scenario B: proven needs of $3,500.

• Proven needs minus presumptive award: $3,500 − $2,340 = $1,160 in additional needs.
• The court allocates that $1,160 between the parties according to their circumstances.
• Ceiling: the greater of $2,340 and $3,500 is $3,500.

Within §154.126(b)‘s arithmetic, and apart from any variance under §154.123, the total would fall between $2,340 (if none of the additional $1,160 is allocated to the obligor) and $3,500 (if all of it is). To make the allocation concrete, and purely as arithmetic: an allocation of half the additional needs to the obligor would be $580, for a total of $2,340 + $580 = $2,920. The statute does not prescribe a split, and we are not suggesting one. “According to the circumstances of the parties” is a judgment the court makes on the evidence.

Scenario C: proven needs of $5,000.

• Proven needs minus presumptive award: $5,000 − $2,340 = $2,660 in additional needs.
• Ceiling: the greater of $2,340 and $5,000 is $5,000.

This scenario shows the ceiling is not a percentage. The obligor’s maximum, $5,000, is higher than 20% of their full $20,000 ($4,000). If all the additional needs were allocated to the obligor, the total would be $2,340 + $2,660 = $5,000: exactly 100% of proven needs, and exactly the ceiling. The text permits that, because the ceiling is defined by the child’s needs rather than the obligor’s income.

Together the scenarios show the structure: income above the cap makes additional support possible, and the child’s proven needs, net of the presumptive award, set how much is in play.

Worked example: two children, same income

Now the same obligor, $20,000 a month in net resources, with two children before the court.

Step 1: the presumptive award. 25% × $11,700 = $2,925.

Step 2: subtract from proven total needs. Suppose the evidence establishes combined proven needs of $6,000 a month for the two children. $6,000 − $2,925 = $3,075 in additional needs.

Step 3: the ceiling. The greater of $2,925 and $6,000 is $6,000.

Within §154.126(b)‘s arithmetic, and apart from any variance under §154.123, the total would fall between $2,925 and $6,000, depending on how the court allocates the $3,075. As an arithmetic illustration only: a 60% share to the obligor would be $1,845, for a total of $2,925 + $1,845 = $4,770.

For reference, 25% of the full $20,000 would be $5,000. Here the needs ceiling, $6,000, is above it; with lower proven needs it would be below. The percentage on total income is not a bound in either direction.

§154.126 speaks of “the proven total needs of the child.” The Code Construction Act provides that “the singular includes the plural” (Gov’t Code §311.012(b)), so the wording does not confine the analysis to one child. How the needs of two children are proven is a question for the evidence and the court.

What “proven needs” means

The statute does not define proven needs, and we are not going to define it for you. It is a fact question. The court decides it on the evidence presented, and what one court accepts as a need on one record says little about what another court will accept on another.

What the text does establish is that the needs must be “proven,” which means evidence in front of the court. Without it, §154.126(b) has nothing to subtract the presumptive award from.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed the same idea under an earlier statute in Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 860 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1993), when the cap was $4,000: “We agree with the court of appeals that above $4,000 of net monthly resources, additional child support may only be awarded based on the needs of the child.” The court of appeals in that case had concluded that “the proper calculation of the child support required subtracting the presumptive award” from the child’s proven needs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “[t]he record does not support this conclusion nor the instruction to the trial court,” and that the presumptive award is not “conclusively presumed to be based on the needs of the child.” Today’s §154.126(b) expressly requires that “the entire amount of the presumptive award be subtracted from the proven total needs of the child,” and adds the 100% ceiling. Rodriguez construed former §14.055(c), not that text. It is history of the principle, not a guide to how a court will apply the current text.

Findings: §154.130

An order above the presumptive amount does not just appear as a number. Section 154.130 requires the court to make findings in three situations: when a party files a written request “before the final order is signed, but not later than 20 days after the date of rendition of the order”; when a party makes an oral request in open court during the hearing; or when “the amount of child support ordered by the court varies from the amount computed by applying the percentage guidelines under Section 154.125 or 154.129, as applicable.”

When findings are required, subsection (b) says the court “shall state whether the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate” and shall state in the order:

1. “the net resources of the obligor per month are $______;”
2. “the net resources of the obligee per month are $______;”
3. “the percentage applied to the obligor’s net resources for child support is ______%; and”
4. “if applicable, the specific reasons that the amount of child support per month ordered by the court varies from the amount computed by applying the percentage guidelines under Section 154.125 or 154.129, as applicable.”

Under subsection (c), findings on the obligee’s net resources “are required only if evidence of the monthly net resources of the obligee has been offered.”

For a reader trying to understand an existing order above $2,340 for one child, the findings, where made, are where the court stated the net resources it found and its reasons for the variance.

Two things this does not change

The presumptive award is still a presumption. §154.122(a) says the guideline amount “is presumed to be reasonable” and that an order conforming to the guidelines “is presumed to be in the best interest of the child,” and §154.122(b) says a court “may determine that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances.” §154.123 lists the factors a court considers in that determination, starting with “the age and needs of the child” and “the ability of the parents to contribute to the support of the child.” Those provisions operate alongside §154.126; they are not displaced by it.

Agreements are a separate path. §154.124 allows the parties to agree in writing to support terms, “including variations from the child support guidelines,” and the court renders an order on the agreement if it finds it is in the child’s best interest.

What our calculator does, and does not, do

Our Texas child support calculator computes the presumptive amount: it derives net resources under §154.062, caps them at $11,700 under §154.125, and applies the percentage. For the $20,000 obligor above, it reports $2,340 for one child and $2,925 for two.

It does not compute anything under §154.126. The calculator’s own FAQ says so directly: a court “may award additional support based on proven needs of the child,” and the calculator “computes only the §154.125 guideline figure; above-cap discretionary amounts are out of scope.” That is deliberate. The above-cap amount depends on a needs finding and an allocation the statute leaves to the court, and a calculator that produced one number for it would be inventing both inputs.

If your case involves children in more than one household, the cap also affects which multiple-household method is available. We covered that in our post on §154.128 and §154.129.

Primary sources

• Tex. Fam. Code Chapter 154 at statutes.capitol.texas.gov. §154.125 sets the cap mechanism and the percentages, §154.126 governs support on net resources above the cap, §154.122 and §154.123 govern the guideline presumption and the factors for varying from it, §154.124 covers agreements, and §154.130 sets the findings requirements.
• OAG 2025 Revised Tax Charts at csapps.oag.texas.gov, which record the August 15, 2025 adjustment of the cap from $9,200 to $11,700, effective September 1, 2025.
• OAG Monthly Child Support Calculator at csapps.oag.texas.gov, which applies the $11,700 cap.
• Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 860 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1993) at CourtListener, construing the predecessor provision.
• Tex. Gov’t Code §81.101 at statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Subsection (c) is why this post, and our calculator, state that they are not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.

Statutes reviewed 2026-10-08 on statutes.capitol.texas.gov, which reports its contents current through the 89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session, 2025.