This is the last of three posts on Colorado's 2026 child support law. The first covers what changed on March 1, 2026, the second the new parenting-time table. This one is about the families the schedule does not reach.
Colorado's child support schedule is a table, and every table has a last row. For orders entered or modified on or after March 1, 2026, that row is $40,000 a month in combined adjusted gross income, or $480,000 a year, up from $30,000 under the old law. Below the line, the calculation is arithmetic. Above it, C.R.S. § 14-10-115(7)(a)(VII) gives the judge discretion, subject to one hard rule: the presumptive obligation cannot be less than the amount at the top of the schedule.
For a family of executives, business owners, or professionals, the two questions that decide the case are how far above the floor the court will go, and what counts as income in the first place.
The New Top of the Schedule
House Bill 25-1159 rebuilt the schedule of basic child support obligations and extended it by a third. At $40,000 in combined monthly income, the basic obligation is $3,398 for one child, $4,992 for two, $5,817 for three, $6,498 for four, $7,148 for five, and $7,769 for six or more. Those figures are divided between the parents in proportion to income, so a parent earning 80 percent of a $40,000 combined income with two children carries a basic obligation of about $3,994 before child care, insurance, and medical add-ons.
The extension matters for two reasons. Families between $360,000 and $480,000 a year, who under the old law were above the schedule and litigating discretion, are now inside the table. And the floor for everyone above the table moved up: the old top-of-schedule figure for two children was $3,819, and the new one is $4,992, an increase of about 30 percent that flows into every above-guideline case opened or modified from now on.
The Floor Rule and the Discretion Above It
Section 14-10-115(7)(a)(VII) says the judge "may use discretion" when combined income exceeds the schedule, "except that the presumptive basic child support obligation must not be less than it would be based on the highest level" in the schedule. The Colorado Supreme Court settled what that means in In re Marriage of Boettcher (2019). The top-of-schedule amount is a floor, not a presumptive award. A court that orders more than the floor is exercising discretion, not deviating, and it does not have to make the findings § 14-10-115(8)(e) requires for a deviation. A court that orders less than the floor is deviating and must justify it.
Discretion is not a blank check. The court must consider the factors in § 14-10-115(2)(b): the financial resources of the child, of the parent receiving support, and of the parent paying it; the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage continued; and the child's physical and emotional condition and educational needs. And it must make findings specific enough for an appellate court to see how it got to the number.
Two decisions bracket what that looks like. In Boettcher, the trial court set support above the floor after findings about the child's expenses, the father's substantial resources, and the mother's plan to save for college, and the award was affirmed. In In re Marriage of Evans (2021), a magistrate ordered $12,000 a month after findings about both parents' incomes, the family's extravagant standard of living, and what each parent testified to spending on the children, and the Court of Appeals reversed because none of it explained why the children needed $12,000. Findings about wealth are not findings about need.
Why Extrapolation Is Argued and Rarely Adopted
The obvious shortcut is to extend the schedule's slope. At $40,000, two children generate $4,992, or about 12.5 percent of combined income; apply that to $60,000 and the number is $7,488. Colorado courts have rejected that method as the sole basis for an award since In re Marriage of Van Inwegen (1988), which read the statute's express allowance of interpolation within the schedule as excluding mechanical extrapolation above it. In re Marriage of Ludwig (2005) reversed an award built that way for lack of findings about the child's needs.
The court may still consider an extrapolated figure as one input among several, per In re Marriage of Foss (2001), and it may award more than the child's proven needs, per In re Marriage of Nimmo (1995). What it cannot do is skip the evidence. In re Marriage of LeBlanc (1990) describes the evidence that works: translate the pre-divorce standard of living into specific costs for food, shelter, education, and recreation, and then decide whether the guideline amount meets those needs directly or indirectly.
In practice, the parent seeking an above-floor award builds a documented children's budget, and the parent resisting it shows that the floor plus add-ons already covers the children's actual life. Neither side wins on the size of the other's paycheck alone.
Counting an Owner's or Executive's Income
Above the schedule, the court does not need to fix income to the dollar; In re Marriage of Roddy (2014) held that an exact figure is not required once combined income exceeds the guidelines. Income still sets each parent's share of the floor, feeds the § 14-10-115(2)(b) analysis, and for a family near the $40,000 line decides whether the case is inside the table at all.
Section 14-10-115(5)(a) defines gross income to include salary, bonuses, commissions, dividends, capital gains, rents, royalties, trust income, and income from partnerships, closely held corporations, and LLCs. The rules that matter most for owners and executives:
- Pass-through income reported on a K-1 counts for an owner who runs the business, whether or not it was distributed; a passive minority investor with no managerial role may be limited to actual cash distributions.
- Business income is gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses. Accelerated depreciation does not count as an expense, and since 2025 the court may use straight-line depreciation even if the tax return used an accelerated method.
- Bonuses and commissions are income, but the court may decline to estimate a future bonus that is uncertain, per In re Marriage of Finer (1996), and may average fluctuating income over several years, per In re Marriage of Rice and Foutch (1999).
- Stock options are income when exercised, measured by the spread between the exercise price and the sale price, per In re Marriage of Campbell (1995); unexercised options and unvested equity are not, per In re Marriage of Davis (2011).
- Perks count when they are significant and reduce personal living expenses: a company car, phone, or housing under In re Marriage of Gibbs (2019). An employer's retirement contribution does not, and unrealized gains in an investment account do not, per In re Marriage of Schaefer (2022).
- A large capital gain is income in the year received, and the asset it becomes can be assigned a reasonable rate of return in later years, per In re Marriage of Zisch (1998).
The income treatment of restricted stock units, deferred compensation, and carried interest is the subject of a separate article on this blog; the child support point is that whatever the court counts as income determines the shares of the floor and the credibility of the needs analysis.
Deviation Findings: The Other Direction
High-income cases also produce arguments for less than the guideline result. Section 14-10-115(8)(e) lists a gross disparity in the parents' incomes and ownership of a substantial non-income-producing asset as possible grounds, and the court may deviate for unlisted reasons. Any deviation requires findings stating the presumptive amount and the reasons for departing, and the parent seeking it must show the deviation is reasonable and necessary. A paying parent who has already funded a trust for the children, or who covers private school and every activity directly, has a legitimate argument that the guideline result is inequitable. A parent who simply thinks the number is large does not.
Talk to a Denver Divorce Attorney About High-Income Child Support
Aaron Herzberg is a divorce attorney in Greenwood Village, Colorado, serving Denver and the Front Range, with more than 30 years of trial experience and a practice focused on divorce, custody, and financially complex family law. In an above-guideline case the number is decided by the quality of the evidence about the children's needs and the parents' real income, and that evidence is assembled long before the hearing. A first meeting is a paid consultation, not a free call and not a sales pitch.
Read the full guide on DenverDivorce.com: Child Support in Colorado.
Educational information only, not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship.
