Is Child Support Still Ordered in New Hampshire When Parents Have Equal Parenting Time and Similar Incomes?
- May 20
- 5 min read
New Hampshire’s child support laws underwent a significant change effective January 1, 2025. Under amendments to RSA 458-C:5, the legislature created a rebuttable presumption that, in certain shared-parenting cases, a $0 child support order may be appropriate. The change reflects a growing recognition that where parents truly share parenting responsibilities and have substantially similar incomes, traditional child support calculations may not fit the realities of the family structure.
But the statute does not automatically eliminate child support simply because parents share custody equally. Courts still retain discretion, and the “best interests of the child” remain the controlling principle.
The Statutory Framework Under RSA 458-C:5
The key language appears in RSA 458-C:5(I)(h), which governs parenting schedules and deviations from the child support guidelines. Effective January 1, 2025, the statute provides that where:
The parties each pay 50% of eligible child care costs;
The parties each pay 50% of uninsured medical expenses; and
The parties each pay 50% of agreed extracurricular expenses,
the court must then examine the parties’ incomes and parenting schedule.
The statute creates several rebuttable presumptions.
Most importantly, RSA 458-C:5(I)(h)(1)(A) states:
When the parties have “substantially similar incomes” and an “approximately equal parenting schedule,” there is a rebuttable presumption that a $0 child support obligation is appropriate.
This language is important because it changes the starting point for the court’s analysis.
What Does “Substantially Similar Incomes” Mean?
The statute now defines “substantially similar incomes” in RSA 458-C:1(X-a). The difference between the parties’ gross monthly incomes cannot exceed 10%.
For example:
Parent A earns $6,000 gross per month.
Parent B earns $5,500 gross per month.
Because the difference is within 10%, the parents may qualify as having substantially similar incomes.
If the income difference exceeds 10%, the presumption of $0 child support does not automatically apply.
What Is an “Approximately Equal Parenting Schedule”?
RSA 458-C:1(VIII-c)(a) defines an “approximately equal parenting schedule” as one in which each parent has more than 40% of the annual parenting time.
This definition is broader than a strict 50/50 split. A 55/45 or even certain 60/40 schedules may potentially satisfy the statute.
The legislature also distinguishes between:
“Approximately equal parenting schedules” (greater than 40%), and
“Substantially shared parenting schedules” (greater than 35%).
That distinction matters because the statute provides different presumptions depending on the level of shared parenting.
Is Child Support Automatically Eliminated?
No.
The statute creates a rebuttable presumption, not a mandatory rule.
A rebuttable presumption means the court begins with the assumption that $0 support is appropriate, but either party may present evidence showing why support should still be ordered.
The court must still evaluate the children’s best interests and the actual financial realities of the parties.
RSA 458-C:5 specifically states that the presumptions do not apply where:
Extraordinary circumstances exist;
A child has significant health issues;
The parents live far apart;
A parent has an unusual work schedule;
There is evidence of abuse; or
Application of the presumption would not be in the child’s best interests.
Accordingly, even in equal-parenting cases, a court may still order child support.
Why Courts May Still Order Support
Even when parents technically qualify for the presumption, courts may conclude that financial disparities still affect the child’s quality of life between households.
The statute expressly instructs courts to consider whether the lower-earning parent can maintain the child “in a similar or approximately equal style” to the other parent.
This language reflects a longstanding principle in child support law: support exists to benefit the child, not to equalize the parents.
For example, if:
One parent owns a substantially more expensive home,
One parent pays significantly lower housing expenses,
One parent receives substantial non-income financial support,
Or one parent’s lifestyle materially exceeds the other’s,
the court may determine that some support remains appropriate despite equal parenting time.
Conversely, where parents truly maintain comparable households and divide expenses equally, courts may increasingly enter $0 support orders under the revised statute.
The Importance of Shared Expenses
The statute also conditions the presumption on both parties sharing key child-related expenses equally.
This is critical.
If one parent disproportionately pays for:
health insurance,
daycare,
school costs,
extracurricular activities,
clothing, or
transportation,
the court may find that a guideline deviation remains necessary.
The law effectively assumes that parents operating under a true shared-parenting model are also sharing the major financial responsibilities of raising the children.
The New Anti-Windfall Provision
One of the most notable additions to RSA 458-C:5 is subsection (h)(1)(E), which provides:
A child support order should not result in the obligee parent having higher adjusted monthly income than the obligor parent after taxes and payroll deductions.
This provision appears aimed at preventing child support awards that effectively create an unintended financial imbalance between the parents.
The amendment signals a legislative concern that traditional guideline calculations may produce inequitable outcomes in shared-parenting arrangements.
Burden of Proof
The party requesting a deviation from the standard guidelines bears the burden of proof.
RSA 458-C:5(II) requires the party seeking adjustment to establish the special circumstances by a “preponderance of the evidence.”
In practice, this means parents should be prepared to present:
detailed parenting schedules,
income documentation,
evidence of expense sharing,
tax information,
childcare costs,
and evidence regarding the children’s living conditions in both homes.
Practical Effect of the 2025 Amendments
The 2025 amendments represent one of the most significant changes to New Hampshire child support law in years.
Before the amendment, equal parenting time alone generally did not justify eliminating child support. The prior statute expressly stated that equal parenting “shall not eliminate the need for child support.”
The revised law moves New Hampshire toward a more modern shared-parenting framework that recognizes the realities of two-income households and equal residential responsibility.
However, courts still maintain broad discretion. The statute does not create an automatic rule of no support in every 50/50 case.
Instead, the law creates a structured framework that balances:
equal parenting,
comparable incomes,
expense sharing,
and the child’s best interests.
Conclusion
Under RSA 458-C:5, New Hampshire courts may now presume that a $0 child support order is appropriate when parents:
have substantially similar incomes,
exercise approximately equal parenting time,
and equally divide major child-related expenses.
But the presumption is rebuttable, not automatic.
Courts retain authority to order support where the facts demonstrate that doing so is necessary to protect the children’s best interests or to ensure reasonably comparable living conditions between the two households.
As a result, equal parenting time alone no longer guarantees child support, but neither does it automatically eliminate it. The outcome will depend on the specific financial and parenting circumstances presented to the court.
TO SPEAK WITH AN EXPERIENCED NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVORCE ATTORNEY, PLEASE CONTACT FAMILY LEGAL SERVICES, P.C. AT (603) 225-1114.
Jeffrey A. Runge, Esquire
Family Legal Services, P.C.
141 Airport Road,
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 225-1135
Comments