Child Support Laws in Nevada (Updated for 2025)

by | Feb 15, 2025 | Child Support | 0 comments

Nevada’s child support laws have undergone significant changes in recent years. In 2020, Nevada shifted from fixed statutory formulas to a new set of administrative regulations, overhauling how child support is calculated and enforced. Since then, further refinements (including regulatory updates in late 2024) have clarified various aspects of the law. This updated article provides a comprehensive overview of Nevada’s child support rules as of February 2025, including recent changes in guidelines, key court decisions, and practical details. Our goal is to make the information accessible and useful for anyone seeking to understand child support in Nevada.

TL;DR: Nevada Child Support Laws (Updated 2025)

  1. Major Overhaul in 2020 – Nevada switched from a simple percentage-based system to a tiered formula in the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC 425), allowing for more flexible updates via regulations instead of statutes.
  2. 2024 Regulatory Updates – Key clarifications include:
    • Distinction between base child support (formula-based) and total support (including medical, child care, etc.).
    • Child support ends the first day of the month after a child turns 18 (or 19 if still in high school).
    • Courts must combine base support and additional costs into one total order for consistency.
  3. Tiered Child Support Formula – Instead of a flat percentage, support is based on income brackets:
    • Example for one child:
      • 16% of the first $6,000
      • 8% of income from $6,000–$10,000
      • 4% of income above $10,000
    • More children = higher percentages.
  4. No More Caps on High-Income Cases – Unlike the old system, there’s no max limit for child support, though courts can still limit excessive amounts.
  5. Joint & Split Custody Adjustments –
    • In joint custody (at least 40% time each parent), support is calculated for both parents, and the higher earner pays the difference.
    • In split custody (each parent has at least one child full-time), obligations are offset.
  6. Low-Income & Incarcerated Parents –
    • Minimum support tied to federal poverty guidelines (could be lower than $100/month).
    • Incarcerated parents (6+ months) won’t accrue support debt unless they have other income.
  7. Modifications & Enforcement –
    • Parents can request a review every 3 years or sooner if there’s a 20%+ income change.
    • Unpaid support accumulates with interest, but Nevada removed the 10% penalty on arrears (only interest applies now).
    • Enforcement options include wage garnishment, tax refund interception, license suspension, and contempt penalties.
  8. Recent Court Rulings –
    • Martinez v. Martinez (2024): Travel costs for visitation must be factored into child support orders (not separately ordered).
    • Matkulak v. Davis (2022): Courts can increase child support for high-income parents, but not beyond what the lower-earning parent would owe if roles were reversed.
  9. Future Legal Questions – Upcoming clarifications may address how to calculate child support with alimony and how to handle parents with multiple child support cases (“serial parents”).

Bottom Line: Nevada’s child support system is now more detailed, flexible, and income-based, with adjustments for joint custody, low-income parents, and additional expenses. Enforcement remains strong, and the system will likely continue evolving.

Overview of Nevada Child Support Law Changes

Effective February 1, 2020, Nevada implemented the most sweeping changes to its child support laws in over 30 years. The prior child support statutes in Chapter 125B of the Nevada Revised Statutes (which had set straightforward percentage-of-income guidelines and caps) were replaced by a detailed framework of regulations codified in Chapter 425 of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). These regulations—established by Nevada’s Child Support Guidelines Committee pursuant to federal requirements—govern who owes support, the duration of the obligation, how the amount is calculated, when it can be modified, and certain aspects of enforcement.

All parents, regardless of marital status, have a legal duty to support their children. The support duty continues until the child reaches 18 years old (or up to 19 if the child is still enrolled in high school). A child support obligation can extend longer in special cases—Nevada law allows support to continue up to age 21 or even indefinitely for a child with significant disabilities who cannot become self-supporting. Recent rregulations also clarify the exact termination date of child support: support ends on the first day of the month immediately following the month in which the child turns 18 (or graduates high school or turns 19, whichever comes first). This rule helps parents and enforcement agencies determine precisely when an obligation should stop.

Importantly, the 2020 overhaul moved the details of child support calculation from statutes to administrative regulations (NAC 425). This means updates can be made via the regulatory process. In fact, additional amendments were adopted in late 2024 to refine the guidelines. These recent updates clarified terminology and filled some gaps in the 2020 rules. For example, the regulations now clearly distinguish between a “base child support obligation” (the amount calculated under the formula based on income and custody) and the “total child support obligation” (which includes the base amount plus additional costs such as health insurance and child-care expenses). Courts are now instructed to combine the base support and any additional mandatory support costs into a single total support order, rather than treating add-ons separately, to ensure consistency in how orders are issued.

In summary, Nevada’s child support system is governed by an evolving set of regulations designed to be responsive to economic conditions and fairness considerations. The remainder of this article explains how support is calculated under the current rules, how different custody arrangements affect support, what the recent changes mean for parents, and other key details like modifications and enforcement.

Nevada Child Support Formula: Calculating Support Under the Current Guidelines

Under the Nevada Child Support Guidelines (effective 2020 and still in force as of 2025), the formula for determining a parent’s base child support obligation is more nuanced than the old one. Instead of a single percentage of income per child (with a cap) as under the former law, the new regulations use tiered percentage rates applied to the obligor’s gross monthly income, with different percentages for different income brackets. In simple terms, the first portion of a parent’s income is assessed at one rate, the next portion at a lower rate, and so on, which yields the base support amount. Notably, the previous statutory presumptive minimum ($100/month) and presumptive maximum cap were eliminated. There is no automatic cap on high-income support obligations now, and low-income cases are handled by referencing federal poverty guidelines (which are updated annually) instead of a fixed $100 minimum.

How the tiered formula works: NAC § 425.140 provides a schedule of percentages. For example:

  • One child: 16% of the first $6,000 of the obligor’s gross monthly income, 8% of income from $6,000 up to $10,000, and 4% of income above $10,000.
  • Two children: 22% of the first $6,000, 11% of income from $6,000 to $10,000, and 6% above $10,000.
  • Three children: 26% of the first $6,000, 13% of income from $6,000 to $10,000, and 6% above $10,000.
  • Four children: 28% of the first $6,000, 14% of $6,000 to $10,000, and 7% above $10,000
  • Five or more: For each additional child beyond four, add 2% to the first bracket, 1% to the second bracket, and 0.5% to the top bracket.

Using this formula, a parent’s income is applied in segments. For example: if a parent earns $8,000 per month and has two children, the base support would be 22% of the first $6,000 ($1,320) plus 11% of the remaining $2,000 ($220), for a total of $1,540 per month. If the same parent’s income were $12,000, the amount would be $1,320 (for the first $6,000) + $440 (11% of the next $4,000) + $120 (6% of the $2,000 above $10,000), totaling $1,880. This tiered approach ensures that as income rises, the marginal percentage of support due on higher income portions is lower, preventing extremely high support amounts while still increasing support as parental income increases.

It’s important to note that these percentages apply to gross monthly income (GMI), which the regulations define in detail. Gross monthly income is broadly defined to include nearly all sources of income or compensation, with a few specific exclusions. The NAC expressly includes in GMI:

  1. Wages and salary (including consistent overtime)
  2. Interest and investment income (excluding principal)
  3. Social Security benefits (for disability or retirement)
  4. Pension or annuity payments that are remuneration for employment
  5. Workers’ compensation or personal injury awards intended to replace income
  6. Unemployment insurance benefits
  7. Income continuation or disability insurance payments
  8. Voluntary contributions to retirement plans (e.g. 401(k) deductions)
  9. Military allowances and veterans’ benefits
  10. Compensation for lost wages (e.g. from litigation)
  11. Undistributed profits from a business if the party has control over the entity (with specific rules for calculating depreciation)
  12. Child-care subsidy payments (if the party is a child-care provider)
  13. Alimony received (spousal support from a prior marriage or another case)
  14. Any other income of a party, taxable or not (catch-all for income sources)

At the same time, certain payments are excluded from gross income under the guidelines, for fairness or policy reasons. GMI does not include, for example:

  • Child support received for other children
  • Foster care or kinship care payments
  • Benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (food stamps)
  • Cash public assistance benefits (e.g. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and state supplemental disability payments
  • Other need-based public assistance or social services benefits
  • Personal injury awards not intended to replace income (i.e. compensation for pain and suffering or other non-wage damages).

The definition of income was one area refined by the 2020 regulations to prevent obligors from hiding income and to clarify ambiguous areas. In 2024, further clarifications were made to the income definitions (for instance, the term “public assistance” was explicitly defined in line with existing law and clarified to exclude Nevada’s children’s health insurance program). Overall, the intent is to capture a realistic picture of each parent’s financial resources while excluding purely need-based aid or support received for other children.

After calculating the base support amount from gross income, the court can consider additional mandatory expenses that must be addressed. Nevada law requires every child support order to include provisions for medical support – typically, one or both parents must provide health insurance if available at a reasonable cost. As of the 2024 updates, courts are expressly required to make an equitable division of the child’s health insurance costs and other medical support between the parents . Similarly, courts must consider “reasonable” work-related child care costs paid by either parent and divide those costs equitably. In practice, this means that if child care expenses are necessary (for example, while a parent is working or going to school), the court will add those costs on top of the base support and allocate them in a fair manner (often proportional to income or based on other equitable factors).

Example: Suppose the paying parent’s base support (from the formula) is $500 per month, and the parents incur $300 per month in work-related daycare expenses. The court might order each parent to pay half of the daycare cost ($150 each) if their incomes are similar, or some other split based on their financial situations, and then add the paying parent’s share to the base support. The total child support obligation in that scenario might be $650 per month from one parent to the other, with an explanation in the order about the inclusion of child care costs. By requiring the combination of base support and additional expenses into a single order, the regulations ensure there is a clear, enforceable total amount .

One notable change in the 2020 regulations is the handling of very low-income obligors. Under the old law, a parent with very little income was still presumed to owe at least $100 per month. Now, the minimum support for parents with extremely low income is tied to the federal poverty level tables, which adjust annually. If an obligor’s income is near poverty level, the required support may be lower than $100, or possibly zero in cases of truly no income or incarceration. In fact, Nevada law specifies that if a parent is incarcerated for 6 months or more, that status cannot be treated as voluntary unemployment for purposes of child support. This means incarcerated parents generally will not have support accrue against them during imprisonment (unless they have other income or assets), a rule intended to prevent unpayable debt from piling up when the parent has no ability to earn.

Child Support in Joint or Split Custody Situations

Child support calculations also account for custody arrangements. Nevada law distinguishes between primary physical custody (one parent has the child more than 60% of the time) and joint physical custody (each parent has the child at least 40% of the time, which is sometimes described as a 60/40 split or closer). The Nevada Supreme Court established, in a series of cases, how child support is adjusted in joint custody scenarios:

  • In Wright v. Osburn (1998), the Court decided that when parents have 50/50 custody, you calculate support for each parent and then offset the two amounts – the higher-earning parent pays the difference to the other parent.
  • In Wesley v. Foster (2003), the Court clarified that this offset should be done before applying any caps or maximums (under the old law).
  • Later, in Rivero v. Rivero (2009), the Court extended the offset rule to all joint custody cases, defining “joint custody” broadly as any arrangement where each parent has at least 40% of the time (i.e., 60/40 or nearer to equal).

Under the current regulations, the same offset approach is used for joint custody cases. Essentially, each parent’s obligation is calculated as if the other parent had primary custody, and then the obligations are offset against each other . The parent who would owe more pays the difference to the other parent. For instance, if in a shared custody arrangement Parent A would owe $800 based on their income and Parent B would owe $500 based on theirs, the result is that Parent A pays Parent B $300 per month (the difference between $800 and $500). This ensures the child enjoys a level of support proportional to both parents’ incomes, even though time is split.

The regulations also handle situations where custody is split or mixed – for example, if parents have more than one child and each parent has primary custody of at least one child, or one child is primarily with Parent A and another primarily with Parent B. In such cases, the guidelines require courts to calculate each parent’s support obligation for the child(ren) in the other parent’s custody, and then offset those amounts. This was clarified in the 2024 updates to ensure that “split custody” scenarios are treated fairly. In practice, this means if each parent is the primary custodian for one of two children, you would calculate what Parent A owes for the child with Parent B, and what Parent B owes for the child with Parent A, and then offset the two. The net payment goes to the parent with the lower obligation or greater need. This approach mirrors how joint custody offsets work, but it accounts for each child’s living arrangement.

It’s worth noting that the presence of joint custody does not eliminate child support; rather, it requires an adjustment. Some people mistakenly believe if custody is 50/50, no one pays support. In reality, unless the parents have exactly the same income and share expenses equally, typically the higher earner will still pay some support to the lower earner so that the child’s standard of living remains more consistent. Only if the calculated obligations exactly offset (or the parents agree and justify a deviation) would no money change hands.

The child support regulations continue to evolve, and the Nevada Child Support Guidelines Committee is expected to address remaining open issues in the future. One topic identified for future clarification is how to account for alimony (spousal support) paid or received by a parent in the child support calculation. Currently, the regulations do include alimony received as part of gross income, and they allow deviation if a parent is paying alimony to someone else (as an “obligation to support others”). However, the precise method for adjusting child support when the same two parties have both alimony and child support between them is not explicitly spelled out. Another open issue is how to handle “multiple family” situations (sometimes called “serial parents”), where an obligor has children with more than one other parent. The law does allow a deviation based on the support of others, but there isn’t a fixed formula for serial families. Guidelines or formulas for these scenarios may be developed in the coming years. (For some ideas on handling multiple families, see Willick Law Group’s Legal Note, Vol. 32 on calculating support with multiple families.)

Examples of Adjustments and Deviations from the Guidelines

Nevada’s child support regulations recognize that the formula result may not fit every situation. NAC § 425.150 lists several factors under which a court may deviate from the presumptive formula amount to increase or decrease the support if warranted. Some key deviation factors include:

  • Special needs of the child (such as extraordinary medical or educational expenses).
  • The cost of transportation for visitation (especially relevant if parents live far apart).
  • The legal responsibility of the parents for other children (children from other relationships that they are legally supporting).
  • The relative income of both households (if one parent’s household has significantly more resources, an upward adjustment might be considered, with limits)
  • Any other necessary expenses for the benefit of the child (a catch-all for unusual expenses).
  • The obligor’s ability to pay (in rare cases, if the guideline amount is truly unworkable, though ability to pay is usually reflected by income itself).

The 2020 overhaul simplified the list of deviation factors (the old law had more factors, including things like the age of the child and amount of time spent with the child, which are now either removed or covered by the primary/joint custody adjustment). Now, factors like child care and medical insurance are directly addressed in the base calculation, and the remaining deviation factors focus on extraordinary needs or fairness concerns.

Two recent Nevada Supreme Court cases have provided guidance on how deviations should be handled:

  • Transportation Costs for Visitation: In Martinez v. Martinez (Nev. Sup. Ct. Nov. 2024), the Court held that when a parent incurs significant costs to transport a child for visitation between parents (for example, airfare for an out-of-state visit), those costs must be considered within the child support calculation – not ordered separately outside of it . In that case, the mother had been ordered to pay all travel costs on top of child support due to her relocation, but the Supreme Court reversed that part of the order. The Court clarified that under NAC 425.150, transportation expenses are one of the factors to adjust support, so a judge should factor those costs into the support amount (potentially reducing the paying parent’s obligation or otherwise adjusting it), rather than issuing a separate standalone travel expense order. This ensures the total support determination is comprehensive. Practical takeaway: If you have to fly your child for visits or drive long distances regularly, the court should account for those costs by adjusting the support amount.
  • High-Income Parents and Cap on Upward Deviations: Even though Nevada eliminated the old upper-income “cap,” the Supreme Court in Matkulak v. Davis (2022) made clear there is a built-in limit on extreme upward deviations. In that case, the father earned about $38,000 per month and the mother about $5,000. The trial court, noting the father’s high income, deviated upward and set support at $3,500/month (well above the guideline amount for the mother’s income level). The Supreme Court reversed, citing NAC 425.150(1)(f), which says that when considering the relative income of the households as a factor, any upward adjustment “does not exceed the total obligation of the other party.” In plain terms, one parent’s support payment should not be increased beyond what the other parent would have paid if roles were reversed. In Matkulak, the mother’s own guideline support obligation (if she had been the payer) was calculated to be about $823 per month. Therefore, the father’s support could be raised at most by that amount above the normal guideline result – not all the way to $3,500. The Court reduced the support accordingly. Practical takeaway: Nevada courts can require higher-income parents to pay more so that the child shares in a better standard of living, but there is a fairness brake – the increase is capped by the other parent’s share. This prevents an overreach where one household would effectively be subsidizing the other beyond the child’s needs.

It’s also worth mentioning that willful underemployment or unemployment by a parent is addressed in the regulations. The old law required proving a parent was unemployed “for the purpose of avoiding child support” before imputing (assigning) income to them. The new law dropped that language. Now, if a parent is unemployed or working far below their capacity without good cause, the court can impute income based on that parent’s earning potential, work history, job opportunities, or assets. For example, if a parent with the ability to earn $50,000 per year quits their job and chooses to work part-time at minimum wage without a valid reason, the court can calculate child support as if they still earned $50,000. The 2024 updates reinforce that if a parent voluntarily limits work to care for a child (for instance, a stay-at-home parent), the court should make a finding on that, but it does not prevent the court from imputing income if appropriate. Each case is fact-specific, but the guiding principle is that parents should support their children to the best of their ability.

Modification and Enforcement of Child Support Orders

Child support orders are not set in stone – Nevada law provides for modifications when circumstances change. In fact, as a matter of public policy, parents cannot agree to make a child support order non-modifiable. Any private agreement attempting to freeze support or waive the right to modify is unenforceable. This was established by the Nevada Supreme Court in Fernandez v. Fernandez (2010), which held that a clause making child support unchangeable was void against public policy.

When can support be modified? Under NRS 125B.145 and corresponding regulations, a parent (or the state child support agency, if involved) can request a review of the support order every three years without needing to show any other change in circumstances. This tri-annual review provision ensures that support can be adjusted to current incomes and needs on a regular basis. Additionally, a modification can be requested any time if there has been a “change in circumstances” – typically, a change in income of 20% or more is considered sufficient justification to review and possibly adjust the order. For example, if the paying parent gets a significant raise or loses their job, or if the custody arrangement changes, those are valid reasons to ask the court to modify the support amount. The process requires filing a motion to modify in court, and the court will apply the current guidelines to the new situation (with any appropriate deviations). It’s important to note that any modification, if granted, is generally effective from the date the request to modify was filed (unless the parties agree otherwise) – support is not automatically changed for time periods before the motion was filed.

Once a support order is established, any unpaid support builds up as arrears (a past-due debt). Retroactive modification of accrued arrears is not allowed – in other words, a court cannot forgive or reduce child support that has already come due, except very narrowly (such as if the parties had both agreed to a temporary change and even then the court must approve it). This means if you lost your job but didn’t file to modify support for six months, you generally still owe those six months of payments; the court can only adjust going forward from the time of a proper request. The only time Nevada law allows reaching back before an order was entered is when a parent is first obtaining an order. If no prior child support order existed, a parent can seek support arrears for up to 4 years prior to filing the initial complaint for support. For example, if a father had provided no support for an out-of-wedlock child for the first five years, the mother, upon filing, could ask for retroactive support but would be limited to the last four years. This rule incentivizes prompt action to establish support, while placing a reasonable limit on how far back a new order can reach.

Enforcement tools for child support have also been strengthened over the years. Unpaid child support accrues interest at the statutory rate (in Nevada, this is the legal judgment interest rate) on any amount that is due and unpaid. Nevada used to also impose a statutory 10% per annum penalty on arrears, but that 10% penalty was eliminated for periods after the new regulations took effect . Now only interest accrues, not the additional penalty, for new arrears (older arrears might still include the penalty for periods when it was in force). Interest can substantially increase the amount owed over time, so it’s crucial for obligors to stay current or seek a modification if they cannot pay. The Willick Law Group actually developed a software tool used in Nevada to calculate the exact interest (and any penalties) on back child support, which is available at self-help centers and used by courts to ensure arrears calculations are accurate.

Other enforcement mechanisms include income withholding (wage garnishment), interception of tax refunds, suspension of driver’s and professional licenses for serious delinquency, and even contempt of court which can result in fines or jail time for willful failure to pay. Nevada’s enforcement is also coordinated with federal law, meaning that if an obligor moves out of state, the support can be enforced across state lines.

In cases where parents live in different states, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) governs establishment, modification, and enforcement of child support orders across state lines. UIFSA (codified in NRS Chapter 130 in Nevada) ensures that only one state’s order is in effect at a time and provides rules for transferring cases or seeking enforcement in another state’s courts without relitigating the whole matter. For example, if a Nevada court issues a support order and the paying parent moves to Texas, UIFSA allows Texas to enforce the Nevada order (by, say, garnishing wages) but Nevada retains jurisdiction to modify the order (with some exceptions) as long as one of the parties or the child still lives in Nevada. Essentially, UIFSA prevents “forum shopping” and confusion by designating a controlling order and streamlining interstate cooperation on child support.

Ensure Fair & Accurate Child Support – Get Expert Legal Help

Navigating Nevada’s evolving child support laws can be complex, but understanding the latest regulations ensures fair outcomes for both parents and children. Whether you need help establishing, modifying, or enforcing child support, Willick Law Group has the expertise to guide you through the process.

Need legal assistance? Contact Willick Law Group today for a consultation and get the support you deserve.

Expertise and Resources for Handling Child Support Cases in Las Vegas

WILLICK LAW GROUP has extensive experience in child support cases. Mr. Willick chaired the State Bar of Nevada Committee that reviewed Nevada’s child support laws in 1992 and 1996, and several attorneys of the firm have written and lectured on the subject.

From a CLE in Nevada on Family Law Jurisdiction (Nov. 1, 2012)

Other CLE Materials, Articles, and Resources

Downloadable Documents

Links to Other Web Sites

Historical Presumptive Maximums

© Willick Law Group

Marshal S. Willick
Latest posts by Marshal S. Willick (see all)