Two rolls of cash next to words "child support."

It’s common for the Colorado Assembly to tinker with the state’s child support law every couple of years, especially following the Colorado Child Support Commission’s report. Most of the time, child support changes are relatively modest, but in 2025, there were a few significant changes to the child support statute, C.R.S. 14-10-115. Most notably, the 93-overnight threshold to receive a credit for shared parenting time has been removed, but that’s just for starters!

On May 31, 2025, Governor Polis signed House Bill 25-1159. First, a summary of the more significant child support changes:

  • Removal of the 93-overnight requirement for a parent to receive credit for their overnights with children.
  • Extraordinary medical expenses – the $250 per child per year threshold was removed, and the definition was expanded.
  • Tax exemption allocations no longer proportional to income
  • Increasing the combined income threshold that the guidelines apply to from $30,000 to $40,000 (above that, the court continues to have discretion to award more, but not less support, including extrapolating the guidelines to apply them to higher incomes).
  • Changing the maintenance statute to harmonize it with the child support statute’s 24-month age limit for imputing income.
  • Changes to the basic child support schedule amounts, including for low-income parents, and an increase in the overall combined child support obligation that is shared between the parents.

Removing 93-Overnight Threshold for Parenting Time Credit

In Colorado, child support is calculated based upon 12 equal monthly payments, which means an out-of-town parent who has the children for several weeks in the summer or other holidays still pays the same support as during the school year, even when the kids are with that parent.

Begone, Child Support Worksheet A & Worksheet B!

Traditionally, a parent who had fewer than 93 overnights per year paid child support on Worksheet A and received no credit for any overnights. This resulted in a parent with 90 overnights in a year paying the same support as one with zero overnights.

Bedroom with large calendar on the wall

If both parents had at least 93 overnights, it was a shared parenting schedule, which triggered a 1.5 multiplier on the total combined obligation (NOT on the support owing; just the total support pool divided between the parents). But that parent would also receive credit for the overnights, which usually reduced the support due.

The problem with this “all or nothing” approach is that there is nothing magical about the 93 overnight figure – a parent with 30 or 60 overnights still has some increased costs of caring for the children (food, shelter, buying clothes, furnishing a bedroom, etc.), but had not been receiving a credit against their support obligation.

In the most consequential of the 2025 child support changes, the amended statute creates a graduated overnight scale: a parent who has no overnights receives no credit against their child support obligation, and one who has every overnight gets 100% credit.

But while the minority parent no longer needs to reach 93 overnights to receive a credit, the credit they receive is not linear. For example, a parent with 25% of the parenting time receives a 13% credit, not a full 25%, recognizing that the majority parent still incurs higher structural costs. However, the credit amount increases more as overnights increase, so it’s a full 50% credit by the time a parent has 50% of the overnights.

Child Support Overnight Credit Based Upon Parenting Time Table

The new credit, in a “Parenting Time Table” in C.R.S. 14-10-115(8)(h), starts with zero overnights (0% credit), and ends with 365 overnights (100% credit). Some sample overnight thresholds for the credit:

  • 11 overnights: 0.80% credit, for 3.33% share of the overnights.
  • 36 overnights: 3.19% credit, for 10% share of the overnights.
  • 73 overnights: 8.87% credit, for 20% share of the overnights.
  • 122 overnights: 22.54% credit, for 33.33% share of the overnights.
  • 182.5 overnights: 50% credit, matching the 50% share of the overnights.

You can see that at low overnight numbers, the credit is relatively small compared to the parent’s actual share of the overnights. With 36 overnights, the minority parent’s 3.19% credit is less than 1/3 of their 10% share of the overnights; by 122 overnights, the credit reaches 67% of their actual overnights, and at 182.5 overnights, it reaches full parity.

This child support change could be a double-edged sword so far as parenting litigation is concerned. On one hand, it would reduce the litigation around a parent (particularly one who did not live in the same city), making every effort to reach the 93-overnight threshold, at least on paper, by seeking parenting time that might not be practicable to exercise.

However, when a parent indisputably had 92 or fewer overnights, there was no dispute about how many nights that parent had, since the credit was zero regardless. So this may increase litigation when a parent who was allotted a month or two of overnights is not even exercising, as the majority parent seeks support to recognize the reality of the overnight schedule.

Extraordinary Medical Expenses Changes in 2025

The 2025 child support changes modified the definition of extraordinary medical expenses in three ways.

Removal of $250-per-Child-per-Year Threshold

Previously, there was a $250-per-child-per-year threshold, so only annual medical expenses above that amount were shared between the parents. But that created complications, particularly for parents with shared parenting time when both were expected to contribute towards the first $250 of medical expenses.

Past due medical bills in file.

That $250 threshold has been removed, so all medical expenses from the first dollar are subject to allocation between the parents. This has the advantage of being cleaner, but also means the parents will have to interact more to reimburse their share of expenses, even relatively minor $30 co-pays, rather than just sharing the excess over $250.

Expanded Definition of Medical Expenses

Next, the definition of “extraordinary medical expenses” has been significantly expanded to clarify expectations. Per C.R.S. 14-10-115(10)(h)(II):

“(II) “Extraordinary medical expenses include, but are not limited to, copayments, deductibles, and uninsured out-of-pocket expenses for reasonable costs that are reasonably necessary for professional medical care, prescription medication, medical equipment, orthodontia, dental treatment, asthma treatments, physical therapy, vision care, professional counseling or psychiatric therapy for behavioral or mental health disorders, and any uninsured health problem. For adults and children with disabilities or with a disabling condition who are eligible for long-term services and supports pursuant to article 6 of title 25.5 and who are not emancipated pursuant to subsection (13)(a)(II) of this section, extraordinary medical expenses may include any expense resulting from the adult’s or child’s disability or disabling conditions, including expenses that are reasonably necessary to support the adult’s or child’s health, protection, and quality of life. Extraordinary medical expenses may include, but are not limited to, medically necessary equipment, home and vehicle modification, recommended therapeutic activities, and reasonable respite care.”

Extraordinary Medical Expenses Excludes Common Household Products

For the first time, we also have clarification that bandages and similar items are not extraordinary medical expenses unless medically recommended to treat a chronic condition. Per the same C.R.S. 14-10-115(10)(h)(II):

“Ordinary medical expenses included in the schedule of basic child support obligations that are not subject to allocation pursuant to subsection (10)(h)(I) of this section include minor expenses incurred in the course of caring for an adult or child, such as over-the-counter medication, bandages, or regular hygiene and health products, except when the minor expenses are recommended by the adult’s or child’s treatment provider to treat or manage the adult’s or child’s chronic conditions.”

Tax Dependency Exemption Allocations

Previously, C.R.S. 14-10-115(12) allocated exemptions (really, child tax credits that have replaced exemptions) proportional to incomes:

Uncle Sam's arm holding piggy bank

“Dependency exemptions. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, the court shall allocate the right to claim dependent children for income tax purposes between the parties. These rights shall be allocated between the parties in proportion to their contributions to the costs of raising the children.“

Courts had ruled that the term “contributions to the costs of raising the children” referred to their proportional incomes for the purposes of the child support guidelines. That’s clear-cut, crisp, and clean. And a bit arbitrary.

The child support changes create a new C.R.S. 14-10-115(12) that is flexible, and therefore much more complicated:

Dependency exemptions.
(a) The court may allocate an income tax dependency exemption and the resulting tax benefit for a child and require the party who has the child in the party’s physical custody for more than fifty percent of the calendar year to provide the other party a properly executed declaration that releases the party’s claim to the child as a dependent pursuant to the federal “Internal Revenue Code of 1986”, 26 U.S.C. sec. 152 (e). If an allocation of exemption is contested, the court must make findings supporting the court’s decision for the allocation.
(b) In determining the allocation pursuant to subsection (12)(a) of this section, the court shall consider the following:
(I) The financial resources of each party;
(II) Any negative impacts on a party’s ability to provide for the needs of the child if the party is not awarded the allocation of exemption;
(III) If one party or both parties would each receive a tax benefit from the right to claim the child for tax purposes pursuant to the federal “Internal Revenue Code of 1986”, 26 U.S.C. sec. 152 (e). The filing status as head of household is not impacted by this designation.
(IV) The impact of the allocation of exemption on either party’s ability to claim a premium tax credit or a premium subsidy pursuant to the federal “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, 42 U.S.C. sec. 18001 et seq., as amended by the federal “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010”, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1305 et seq., and any federal guidance or regulations issued pursuant to the federal acts.
(c)
(I) The court may place reasonable conditions on a party’s right to claim an allocation of exemption, including a requirement that the party remains in compliance with a child support obligation. In the event the party is not in compliance with a child support obligation or other court order, either party may move to modify the allocation of exemption.
(II) As used in this subsection (12)(c), “compliance with a child support obligation” means making ordered payments for the applicable tax year.
(d) If the court determines that a party has claimed an income tax dependency exemption in violation of a court order or applicable law, or has failed or refused to provide a properly executed written declaration that releases the party’s claim to a child as a dependent to the other party as required by court order, the court may issue an order requiring compensation in the amount of the lost tax benefit and reasonable attorney fees and costs to the party who was wrongfully deprived of the income tax dependency exemption. A motion for relief must be brought within three years after the date of filing the income tax return in which the exemption was claimed or could have been claimed. A party who brings a meritless motion for relief may be ordered to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs to the other party.”

What does this mean for children’s tax exemptions? Less predictability. The court “shall” consider the parents’ financial resources (sort of a reference to income, but also expenses), and the impact on their ability to provide for the child if they didn’t have the exemption (clearly not having the exemption reduces a parent’s resources).

A court could still order exemptions shared between the parents, split, or awarded to the paying parent, the custodial parent, etc. And inevitably, the result of what may be increased fairness is that the lack of predictability will lead to more fights over how exemptions should be allocated.

Increase the Combined Income Threshold to $40,000 per month

The child support guidelines previously “topped out” when the parents’ combined incomes reached $30,000 per month (i.e. $360,000 per year). Above that, the presumptive amount did not automatically increase as their incomes rose, but the family law judge could extrapolate to higher amounts over the guidelines. And frequently did.

The child support changes now apply the guidelines to a combined monthly income of $40,000 (i.e. $480,000 per year); and by covering more parents, it creates a predictable child support amount for more parents. And only those above $40,000/mo are left to battle over extrapolation.

Maintenance Change – Income Imputation Threshold is 24 Months

Years ago, a non-working parent who was the primary caregiver for a joint child under 30 months was not deemed “voluntarily unemployed” for either child support or spousal maintenance.

Back in 2019, the Colorado Assembly changed the child support statute so that this safety net disappeared at 24 months – once your child turned two, the court would impute an income to a stay-at-home parent who did not meet a different exception to imputation. C.R.S. 14-10-115(5)(c)(I)(B).

However, they did not change the spousal maintenance statute, which remained at the same 30 months, resulting in an inconsistency between the statutes. A parent who stayed home to be the primary caregiver for a child who was between 24-30 months would be imputed an income for purposes of calculating child support, but not for the purposes of calculating spousal maintenance.

The assembly finally fixed this with the child support changes in this bill, and now the spousal maintenance statute (C.R.S. 14-10-114(8)(c)(4)) reads:

“If a party is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, maintenance must be calculated based on a determination of potential income; except that a determination of potential income must not be made for a party who is physically or mentally incapacitated or is caring for a child under the age of twenty-four months for whom the parties owe a joint legal responsibility or for an incarcerated parent sentenced to one hundred eighty days or more.”

Effective Date of Child Support Changes

All of the significant child support changes discussed above take effect upon the enactment of the bill, in other words, now! However, the changes do not apply retroactively or automatically to orders already in effect, meaning they will apply only when a court next awards or modifies child support.

Award-Winning Colorado Child Support Lawyers

Staff Paralegal Attorney Firm Group Shot Portrait

U.S. News & World Report calls Graham.Law one of the Best Law Firms in America. Our managing partner and multiple attorneys are recognized by Colorado Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers. Our family law attorneys have years of experience helping clients navigate the Colorado legal system. We know Colorado divorce & family law inside and out, from complex multi-million dollar property or child custody cases to simple child support modifications.

For more information about our top-rated El Paso County family law firm, contact us by filling out our contact form, calling us at (719) 630-1123 to set up a reduced-rate consult, or click on:

Colorado Family Law. Period.