Call 281-333-3030

Evidence of prior income required to reduce child support

Ross Rasberry on August 7, 2026

A parent who asks the court to reduce or increase a monthly child support obligation is required to provide evidence of his or her income at the time of the prior order and at the time of trial.

The Houston First Court of Appeals said this in the case of In re D.H., No. 01-19-00268-CV (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 7/28/2020, no pet.)(mem. op.):

“To determine whether there has been a substantial and material change, the court must compare the financial circumstances of the child and the affected parties at the time the order was entered with their financial circumstances at the time the modification is sought.” As the party seeking to modify the child-support order, Father had “the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a material and substantial change in circumstances [had] occurred,” by presenting evidence of historical and current financial circumstances.

(citations omitted)

This case cited In re C.C.J., 244 S.W.3d 911, 917-18 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) that said,”The record must contain both historical and current evidence of the relevant person’s financial circumstances. Without both sets of data, the court has nothing to compare and cannot determine whether a material and substantial change has occurred.”

So, the hypothetical father who, in 2026, wants to reduce his child support obligation set forth in a 2022 court order must produce evidence of his income in 2022 and in 2026. Evidence might include his income tax returns for 2021 (the last full year before his child support was calculated in 2022), 2022 and 2025 as well as his paystubs from 2026 showing his year-to-date pay. His social security earning statement showing his earnings each year might also be helpful.

Change of circumstances must relate to the modification requested

Greg Enos on July 11, 2026

A modification can only be granted if the change of circumstances proven relates directly to the modification requested. In re A.T.E., No. 01-19-00481-CV (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 9/29/2020, no pet.)(mem. op.) involved a father who sought to modify a 2012 order that gave him supervised visitation because of his drinking. At the modification trial, the father showed that the child was older, both parents had remarried, he lived with a friend and he worked half the time in Saudi Arabia where alcohol was not allowed. The court of appeals held that the father had not met his burden to show that the modifications in visitation he wanted were related to the changes of circumstances since 2012.

Click here to read the entire case.

These quotes from this case explain the holding and remind us which changes in circumstances are not enough to justify modification:

To prove that a material and substantial change in circumstances has occurred, “the evidence must show the conditions that existed at the time of the prior order as compared to the conditions that existed at the time of the hearing on the motion to modify.”

This Court has held that the substantial and material change that is relied on as the basis for modification must be material to the modification sought.

Identifying a change in one circumstance to seek a modification of another aspect of the custody arrangement improperly avoids the Legislature’s requirement that a substantial and material change be established to open the custody terms to modification. The requested modification must be “somehow connected to the changed circumstances” to permit reexamination of the custody terms. (stating, by example, that “a remarriage may require some changes but does not mean that the trial court may now modify other provisions in the original divorce decree unrelated to the remarriage”). Generally, a child’s aging is a contemplated event that will not constitute a substantial and material change. New marriages may qualify if they are shown to affect the parent-child relationship, but the mere fact of remarriage is not sufficient. Lee did not demonstrate how his or Samantha’s new marriages, even coupled with Anna’s older age, supported allowing Lee unsupervised, overnight visits, including international travel. Lee testified that he wanted a fuller relationship with Anna, with lengthier visits and opportunities to travel together. But a parent’s desire for a fuller relationship with a child is not a substantial and material change to warrant modification to remove a requirement that visits be supervised.

Presumption in Favor of JMC Does Not Apply to Modification Cases

Ross Rasberry on December 9, 2024

A recent case from the Dallas Court of Appeals reminds us that the presumption in Sec. 153.131 that parents should be appointed joint managing conservators of the child only applies in original suits and not in modification cases. In re L.G., 05-24-00764-CV (Tex. App. – Dallas, Oct 08, 2024)(mem. op.) states: Section 153.131 provides that, […]

A divorce decree cannot order a party who wants to file a modification to pay the other parent $25,000 on the date the modification is filed or face dismissal.

Ross Rasberry on July 13, 2013

Unbelievably, the trial court followed this provision and dismissed the wife’s modification suit.  The San Antonio Court of Appeals did not reach the issue on whether this provision is void as against public policy and instead held that the provision violates Family Code Sec. 154.124(c) which says agreements concerning child support are not enforceable as […]