The New Rules of Child Care Costs in California
– Episode 25

Amanda Hill explained that California requires parents to cover more than just the basic monthly child support payment. In addition to the set amount, there are “mandatory add-ons.” These include childcare expenses, orthodontics, eye care, out-of-pocket medical costs, and any childcare necessary for job interviews or work hours. The purpose is to ensure that critical costs, which often exceed regular child support, are divided between parents. For example, while standard support may be $1,000 per month, childcare alone can cost $3,000, which is why the courts require parents to share these additional expenses.

As of September 2024, California family law shifted away from a strict 50/50 split of childcare and related costs. Previously, both parents were equally responsible regardless of income. The new law now requires expenses to be divided proportionally based on each parent’s income. Amanda Hill explained that this ensures fairness when one parent earns significantly more than the other. For instance, the new allocation could result in a 75/25 or 60/40 split, depending on the financial circumstances of each parent.

Amanda Hill noted that the new rules generally apply to daycare, after-school care, and programs for children not yet in school. Summer camps, however, can fall into a gray area. If a camp is used in place of daycare because both parents are working, it is typically covered. However, if it is considered recreational, such as a science or sports camp for enrichment, the courts may classify it as discretionary rather than mandatory.

According to Amanda Hill, the parent who incurs the cost must keep receipts, invoices, and proof of payment, then provide them to the other parent. The non-paying parent has 30 days to reimburse their portion. In practice, parents often simplify the process by each paying their share directly to the childcare provider. If one parent fails to pay, the other has the right to return to court to enforce payment. In cases of repeated non-compliance, the court may also order reimbursement of attorney’s fees.

Disputes can arise when parents disagree over whether certain expenses qualify as necessary. Amanda Hill explained that while most mandatory add-ons are clearly defined, conflicts often occur with costly treatments like orthodontia. One parent may argue that braces are not essential, while the other relies on medical advice that they are necessary. Therapy—such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, or mental health treatment—also falls under mandatory add-ons, but disagreements may still require court intervention for resolution.

Amanda Hill emphasized that parents with existing 50/50 orders should review whether the new law could significantly reduce their share of costs. Generally, if one parent earns more than 20% above the other, it may be worthwhile to return to court. This is especially true when young children and high daycare expenses are involved. On the other hand, if the only shared expenses are minor medical co-pays, pursuing a modification may not be worth the effort.

The change does not apply retroactively. Amanda Hill clarified that modifications only take effect from the date of the new order moving forward. Parents cannot revisit past expenses and seek reimbursement under the updated rules.

Amanda Hill confirmed that postnuptial agreements are recognized in California, though not in every state. These agreements, signed after marriage, are scrutinized more closely in court and are easier to challenge. While they can be useful, especially when couples are working through difficulties, they are not as strong as prenups and require extra care in execution.

Amanda Hill advised parents to consult with a family law attorney before making any decisions. Attorneys can run preliminary calculations using family law software, such as Ex Spouse, to estimate how costs would be divided under the new system. This ensures parents are informed about whether seeking a modification would benefit them or, in some cases, unexpectedly increase their financial responsibility. By reviewing the numbers in advance, parents can make smarter decisions about whether to return to court.