Increasing or reducing child support: when an existing amount can be changed
A support judgment is not final in the way other judgments are. It can be revisited, but not at any time and not on any ground. The only gateway is a material change of circumstances, and most cases turn on whether what happened meets that threshold.
“The difference between a case that succeeds and one that fails is almost always documentation. Not what happened, but what can be shown to have happened, and when.”
Adv. Ester Efrati · Head of the Family and Inheritance Department
The rule: a material change of circumstances
A child support judgment differs in nature from other judgments. Because it concerns the needs of a minor, and those needs change over time, there is no bar to revisiting it. That does not make it an open door: the case law has set a clear entry condition, and it is a material change of circumstances.
Such a change has to satisfy two cumulative tests. First, that it is material rather than marginal. Second, that it was not foreseeable when the amount was set. A change that any reasonable person could have anticipated will not qualify, even where it is burdensome in practice.
This holds in both directions. Exactly the same threshold applies to a parent seeking an increase and to a parent seeking a reduction. What differs between them is not the legal test but the kind of facts each has to prove.
One distinction is worth making at once: a claim to change an existing amount is not a claim to set support. In a claim to change, the gateway of changed circumstances must be passed first, and only then is the amount examined. See child support claim.
What counts as a change and what does not
Most of the argument in these cases is not about the amount but about that preliminary question. It is therefore worth knowing the lines the case law has drawn.
What tends to be treated as material:
- A significant and sustained change in one parent’s income, including loss of employment or a change in the state of a business.
- A change in the actual division of parenting time, in either direction.
- A change in the children’s needs: passing age six, entering a more expensive framework, a medical condition or a therapeutic need.
- A change in a parent’s health or earning capacity.
- Relocation that changes the structure of expenses.
What tends not to be:
- A temporary or one-off financial difficulty.
- Starting a new family and having further children, on its own. That is a voluntary and foreseeable step, and it is not enough by itself.
- A self-induced reduction in income, all the more so shortly before filing.
- The child refusing contact, standing alone and without further foundation.
- A change that was known and foreseeable when the amount was set.
These lists are not a formula. The court examines the circumstances as a whole, and the same fact may be accepted in one case and rejected in another, according to its weight and the documentation behind it.
Typical grounds for an increase
A claim for an increase is usually brought by the parent with whom the children spend most of their time, and it generally rests on one of two axes: the needs have grown, or the other parent’s means have improved.
- The children have grown. Moving from early childhood to school, and later to adolescence, changes the structure of expenditure. This is the most common ground.
- A new documented need. An assessment, a treatment, a special framework or a medical condition requiring ongoing funding.
- A marked improvement in the other parent’s income. A promotion, the sale of a business, new income from an asset. Since the division follows the income ratio, a change in the ratio changes the division.
- A change in parenting time. Where the other parent spends less time with the children than was set, the actual expenditure shifts to one side.
- Erosion of the amount. Where no indexation mechanism was set, an amount fixed years ago no longer suffices. This is weaker on its own and stronger combined with another change.
What decides such cases is almost always documentation of actual expenditure. A list supported by receipts is worth far more than an estimate, even a correct one.
Typical grounds for a reduction
A claim for a reduction is usually brought by the paying parent, and it rests on a fall in means or on a change in the actual division.
- A significant and sustained fall in income. Dismissal, closure of a business, illness affecting earning capacity. The emphasis is on sustained rather than temporary.
- A move to extended parenting time. Where the children spend more time with the payer than was set, part of the expenditure is already met directly.
- A marked improvement in the receiving parent’s income. Here too it is the income ratio that drives the division.
- A child reaching eighteen or entering military service. The obligation does not continue automatically, and during regular service a reduced amount is customary.
- A fall in needs. For example a framework that has ended or an expense that has ceased.
What is almost always rejected: a temporary difficulty, debts incurred by choice, and starting a new family on its own. The case law treats a new commitment as a voluntary step rather than a circumstance imposed on the parent.
An important warning: filing a claim reduces nothing. The existing judgment stands until it is changed, and non-payment in the meantime leads to enforcement proceedings and to a debt, even if the claim is ultimately accepted.
Agreement versus judgment
A question that comes up with everyone who signed a divorce agreement: is an arrangement approved by the court immune from change. The answer has two layers that are worth separating.
In the first layer, the agreement binds the parents. The court gives real weight to the fact that both sides negotiated and reached an arrangement, so the threshold for interfering with an amount set by agreement tends to be higher than for an amount awarded in a contested proceeding.
In the second layer, the agreement does not bind the child. Support is the child’s right, and the child was not a party to the negotiation. An agreement therefore cannot entirely block review where the amount does not sit with the child’s needs.
The practical meaning: where the amount was set by agreement, a sharper and better documented change is generally required to justify altering it. Where it was awarded after a contested proceeding, the opening is somewhat wider.
For that reason, when drafting an agreement it is worth setting an updating mechanism in advance: what happens when a child passes six, what happens when incomes change by a given proportion, and how extraordinary expenses are divided. An agreement containing such a mechanism saves most of the future litigation.
Cases decided before July 2017
This is one of the questions we are asked most often: a parent ordered to pay support before the 2017 Supreme Court ruling, can he now seek a reduction on the strength of the ruling alone.
The careful answer is that there is no shortcut. The approach that has taken hold in the family courts is that the ruling in itself is not a material change of circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment. A further factual change is required: in the children’s ages, in the actual division of time, in incomes or in needs.
There is, however, no complete uniformity. Some judges took the view that the ruling alone suffices; others held that the requirement should be relaxed without being abandoned. A further approach distinguishes between an amount set by agreement and one awarded in a contested proceeding. All of these are decisions of family courts, and so they do not bind one another.
The practical conclusion is fairly clear. An application resting on the ruling alone is weak. An application resting on a documented factual change, with the ruling as background, is far stronger. See also child support.
From what date the change applies
Even where the claim succeeds, a second question remains that is no less financial: from what date the new amount applies.
The prevailing rule is that the change applies going forward, from the date of judgment. Courts are cautious about applying a change retrospectively, particularly a reduction, because the money has already gone to the children’s needs and cannot be recovered without harming them.
Alongside this, there are decisions applying a change from an earlier date, usually the date the claim was filed, where the factual change was clear and documented from that date. That is not a default but the product of a good evidentiary foundation.
Two practical conclusions follow. First, a parent who has met a genuine change should file early rather than wait. Every month that passes is a month in which the old amount continues to apply. Second, a parent who stops paying on his own initiative creates an accumulating debt, and the proceeding that follows starts from a worse position.
Where a debt has already accrued the route is entirely different, and it is one of enforcement and collection. See collecting support through National Insurance.
How the claim is filed
The procedure is structurally the same as an ordinary support claim, but the evidential emphasis is different: here the change itself has to be proved first.
- Request for dispute resolution. Required here as well, unless the file is already pending. See request for dispute resolution.
- A statement of claim focused on the change. What the position was when the amount was set, what changed, and exactly when. A comparison between two points in time, not a general description of the situation.
- An updated financial disclosure form with supporting documents: payslips, annual reports, employer confirmations, medical records, and documentation of expenses.
- A record of actual parenting time over months, where the ground concerns the division of time.
Three recurring mistakes: stopping payment before judgment; filing on a feeling without supporting documents; and presenting a change made by choice, such as leaving a job, as though it were imposed. Each of these weakens the case even where a genuine ground exists.
Summary
A support amount is neither locked nor open. The only gateway is an unforeseen material change of circumstances, and the same threshold applies to an increase and to a reduction alike.
Three points are worth taking from here. First, what decides these cases is documentation: a documented comparison between the position that was and the position that is. Second, an amount set by agreement is better protected but not immune, because the child was not a party to the agreement. Third, the 2017 ruling is not in itself a ground, and it is strong only as background to a factual change.
If the support set in your case no longer matches reality, contact us for an early assessment of the ground and the documentation.
What people ask most often
Can a support amount that has already been set be changed?
Yes, but not at any time and not on any ground. A support judgment is open to review provided a material change of circumstances is proved that was not foreseeable when the amount was set. The same threshold applies to an increase and to a reduction.
What counts as a material change of circumstances?
A significant and sustained change in income, a change in the actual division of parenting time, a change in the children’s needs such as passing age six or a medical need, a change in earning capacity, or relocation that changes the structure of expenses.
And what usually does not count?
A temporary financial difficulty, starting a new family on its own, a self-induced reduction in income, a child refusing contact standing alone, and any change that was known and foreseeable when the amount was set.
I have a new family and further children. Is that a ground?
On its own, usually not. The case law treats a new commitment as a voluntary and foreseeable step rather than a circumstance imposed on the parent. It may be weighed as part of the whole picture, but it is hard to build a claim on it.
The divorce agreement set the amount. Is that final?
Not final, but better protected. The court gives weight to the arrangement the parties reached, so the threshold for interference is higher. That said, the child was not a party to the agreement and support is the child’s right, so an agreement does not block review where the amount does not match the child’s needs.
Does the 2017 ruling let me reduce support set before it?
Not in itself. The approach that has taken hold is that the ruling is not a material change of circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment, and a further factual change is required. The family courts have divided on the question, and no binding appellate determination has yet been given.
From what date does the new amount apply?
As a rule from the date of judgment onward. A retrospective application is possible, usually from the date the claim was filed, where the factual change was clear and documented from that date, but it is not the default.
Can payment be stopped until the matter is decided?
No. The existing judgment stands until it is changed. Non-payment creates a debt, leads to enforcement proceedings, and weakens the case even where a genuine ground exists.
How long must one wait after the amount was set?
There is no fixed period. What matters is the change, not the time that has passed. That said, the closer the claim is filed to the change, the easier it is to show it and to ask that the change apply from the filing date.
My child has turned eighteen. Does the obligation end automatically?
Not in every case. Above eighteen there is no automatic obligation, and during regular military service a reduced amount is customary, but where the judgment provides otherwise the change must be regularised rather than acted on unilaterally.
Which documents have to be attached?
An updated financial disclosure form, the last twelve months of payslips, annual reports for a self employed party, employer confirmations or medical records according to the ground, documentation of the children’s expenses, and a record of actual parenting time.
Is a request for dispute resolution required here too?
Yes, unless the file is already pending. It is a threshold requirement as in any family law action.
All pages in the Family and Inheritance department
The separation itself
The divorce processLeaving home before divorceReconciliation or divorceRequest for dispute resolutionDissolution of marriageEconomic abuseRestraining orderBreach of a divorce agreementThe children
Child supportChild support claimIncreasing or reducing supportSupport for a child born outside marriageCollecting support through National InsuranceSpreading a maintenance debtCustody and parenting timeShared parentingThe tender years presumptionChanging a custody arrangementRelocating abroad with the childrenParental alienationDealing with an alienating parentGuardian ad litemSurrogacyPaternity claimThe Youth (Care and Supervision) LawVisual parenting plan builderProperty and agreements
Prenuptial agreementSame sex prenuptial agreementSame-sex marriageNotarised prenuptial agreementDissolution of joint ownershipCareer assets and goodwillSelling the apartment on divorceCommon law partnersInheritance and estate planning
Wills and inheritanceInheritance between same-sex partnersEstate planningWills in estate planningIntergenerational transfer in estate planningTrustsDynasty trustSpecial needs trustInheritance orderProbate orderAgreements between heirsInheritance disputes between siblingsContesting a willNo-contest clause in a willLet us test the ground before a file is opened
A short consultation meeting with a lawyer from the department, to see whether the change that occurred meets the threshold, and what has to be documented to show it.