Rule 1910.16-3.1.Support Guidelines. High-Income Cases.
Adopted January 12, 2010 · Last amended August 11, 2025 · Last verified September 25, 2026
Full Text of Rule 1910.16-3.1
Plain-English Summary
The basic child support schedule stops at a combined monthly net income of $30,000. This rule governs the cases above that line. For child support the court works in three steps. It first applies a formula — a fixed dollar amount for the number of children plus a percentage of the combined income above $30,000 — and apportions the result between the parties by income. It then adjusts for substantial or equally shared custody under Rule 1910.16-4(c). Finally it considers the child’s reasonable needs, drawing on the deviation factors, the additional expenses in Rule 1910.16-6 and the parties’ expense statements, and may adjust the obligation up or down.
Two limits frame that discretion. The award may not fall below the presumptive minimum: what the court would have awarded at exactly $30,000 of combined income. And the final order must state findings of fact and the reasons for the amount, including the child’s reasonable needs and any adjustments or deviations. Spousal support and alimony pendente lite in high-income cases follow a parallel path: a preliminary calculation under Rule 1910.16-4, the same factors, then findings and reasons.
Frequently Asked Questions
What counts as a high-income case?
One in which the parties’ combined monthly net income exceeds $30,000, the top of the basic child support schedule.
Can high-income child support be lower than the schedule’s top figure?
No. The calculated obligation may not be less than the presumptive minimum: the support the court would have awarded at a combined monthly net income of $30,000.
What must the final order include?
Findings of fact and the reasons for the total obligation, including a discussion of the child’s reasonable needs and the adjustments or deviations made to the basic obligation.
Official Note
Historical Commentary The following commentary is historical in nature and represents statements of the Committee at the time of rulemaking: Explanatory Comment—2010 Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-3.1 is intended to bring all child support cases under the guidelines and treat similarly situated parties similarly. Thus, high-income child support cases no longer will be decided pursuant to Melzer v. Witsberger, 480 A.2d 991 (Pa. 1984). Economic data support the basic child support schedule up to combined net incomes of $30,000 per month. Above that amount, economic data are not readily available. Thus, for cases in which the parties’ combined monthly net income is above $30,000, the formula first applies a fixed percentage to calculate the support amount. The formula is an extrapolation of the available economic data to high-income cases. Spousal support and alimony pendente lite awards in high-income cases are preliminarily calculated pursuant to the formulas in either Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-4(a)(1)(Part B) or (2)(Part IV). However, in both high-income child support and spousal support and high-income child support and alimony pendente lite cases, the trier-of-fact is required to consider the factors in Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-5 before entering a final order and to make findings of fact on the record or in writing. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.11(c)(2), in all high-income cases, the parties must submit an Income Statement and the Expense Statement at Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.27(c)(2)(B) to enable the trier-of-fact to consider the factors in Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-5. Explanatory Comment—2011 The rule has been amended to clarify that the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1910.16-4(c), regarding support adjustments if the obligor has substantial or shared custody, apply in high-income cases. Previously, when high-income cases were decided pursuant to Melzer v. Witsberger, 480 A.2d 991 (Pa. 1984), case law held that because the time and resources each parent provided to a child were factored into the Melzer formula, the substantial or shared parenting time reductions did not apply to cases decided pursuant to Melzer. See, e.g., Sirio v. Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Super. 2008); Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007). As Melzer no longer applies to calculate support in high-income cases, the prohibition against substantial or shared parenting time reductions in such cases is no longer applicable.
Amendment History
The provisions of this Rule 1910.16-3.1 adopted January 12, 2010, effective May 12, 2010, 40 Pa.B. 586; amended August 26, 2011, effective September 30, 2011, 41 Pa.B. 4851; amended April 9, 2013, effective August 9, 2013, 43 Pa.B. 2272; amended February 10, 2017, effective May 1, 2017, 47 Pa.B. 1123; amended December 28, 2018, effective January 1, 2019, 49 Pa.B. 170; amended August 17, 2021, effective January 1, 2022, 51 Pa.B. 5539; amended August 11, 2025, effective January 1, 2026, 55 Pa.B. 5978. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (407093) to (407095).