N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 40 / Article 4
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 40-4-11.4 (2026)

Modification of child support orders; exchange of

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
financial information.
   A. A court may modify a child support obligation upon a showing of material and
substantial changes in circumstances subsequent to the adjudication of the pre-existing
order, including the health care needs of a child, to include the availability of health care
coverage. There shall be a presumption of material and substantial changes in
circumstances if application of the child support guidelines in Section 40-4-11.1 NMSA
1978 would result in a deviation upward or downward of more than twenty percent of
the existing child support obligation and the petition for modification is filed more than
one year after the filing of the pre-existing order.

    B. All child support orders shall contain a provision for the annual exchange of
financial information by the obligor and obligee upon a written request by either party.
The financial information to be furnished shall include:

      (1)    federal and state tax returns, including all schedules, for the year
preceding the request;

       (2)    W-2 statements for the year preceding the request;

       (3)    Internal Revenue Service Form 1099s for the year preceding the request;

       (4)    work-related daycare statements for the year preceding the request;

      (5)    dependent medical insurance premiums for the year preceding the
request; and

       (6)    wage and payroll statements for four months preceding the request.

  For the purposes of this subsection, the wages of a subsequent spouse may be
omitted from the financial information provided by either the obligor or the obligee.

   C. The requirement to provide for the child's health care needs in the order, through
insurance or other means, shall be a basis to initiate an adjustment of an order,
regardless of whether an adjustment in the amount of child support is necessary.

History: Laws 1990, ch. 58, § 1; 1991, ch. 206, § 2; 2021, ch. 20, § 4.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

The 2021 amendment, effective July 1, 2021, provided that the health care needs of a
minor child are an adequate basis for modification of a child support order; in
Subsection A, after "pre-existing order", added "including the health care needs of a
child, to include the availability of health care coverage"; and added Subsection C.

The 1991 amendment, effective June 14, 1991, rewrote this section to the extent that a
detailed comparison would be impracticable.

Cases in which there is a presumption of material and substantial changes in
circumstances. — In cases in which application of the parties’ updated financial
information to the child support guidelines results in a deviation upward or downward of
more than twenty percent of the existing child support obligation, the party seeking
modification is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of material and substantial changes
in circumstances justifying a modification. Jury v. Jury, 2017-NMCA-036.

Where petitioner appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to modify a 2010 child
support decree, claiming that the district court’s ruling resulted from its erroneous
determination of the parties’ gross monthly incomes and, by extension, child support
obligations, reversal and remand for recalculation of the parties’ gross monthly incomes
was necessary to the extent that the district court improperly deviated from the child
support guidelines in calculating the parties’ gross monthly incomes and failed to specify
the reasons for its decision in deviating from the child support guidelines, because the
miscalculation potentially deprived petitioner of the presumption of material and
substantial changes in circumstances. Jury v. Jury, 2017-NMCA-036.

Reduction of child support payments upon child reaching majority age. — When a
prior decree directs that a noncustodial parent make lump-sum, periodic child support
payments for two or more children, and one of the children subsequently reaches the
age of majority, the best procedure for a noncustodial parent who seeks a reduction in
child support is to obtain a stipulated order authorizing such modification, or
alternatively to request a hearing on the request for reduction. McCurry v. McCurry,
1994-NMCA-047, 117 N.M. 564, 874 P.2d 25.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Death of obligor parent as affecting
decree for support of child, 14 A.L.R.5th 557.

Decrease in income of obligor spouse following voluntary termination of employment as
basis for modification of child support award, 39 A.L.R.5th 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Jury v. Jury, 2017 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jury v. Jury, 2017 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 28× “If, on remand, the district court’s recalculation of the parties’ gross monthly incomes results in a presumption of material and substantial changes in circumstances under Section 40-4-11.4, the district court shall reconsider whether Petitioner is entitled to a modification of…”
Quintana v. Eddins, 38 P.3d 203 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “We note that if the income earned on Father’s SEP-IRA should change sufficiently, Father may seek a modification of his child support obligation under NMSA 1978, § 40-4-11.4 (1991). {31} Finally, we reject Father’s argument that the trial court erred in requiring him to…”
Boutz v. Donaldson, 991 P.2d 517 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 40-4-11.4 (1991). Under the original order, Father paid child support at the rate of $3000 per month.”
Ingalls v. Ingalls, 888 P.2d 967 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “See NMSA 1978, § 40-4-11.4 (Repl.Pamp.1994). Because we hold that Husband is not entitled to a credit for prepayment of his child support obligation, we need not reach the issue of whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that Husband had paid $68,303…”
Thompson v. Dehne, 220 P.3d 1132 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11.4(A) (1991) provides: “A court may modify a child support obligation upon a showing of material and substantial changes in circumstances subsequent to the adjudication of the preexisting order.”
Kerby v. Kerby, 2002 OK 91 (Okla. 2002). “); N.M Stat. Ann. § 40-4-11.4(A) (2001) (A deviation of more than twenty percent of existing support obligation after one year from previous award creates presumption of material and substantial change in circumstance.”
Jury v. Jury (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 32× “If, on remand, the district court’s recalculation of the parties’ gross 19 monthly incomes results in a presumption of material and substantial changes in 2 1 circumstances under Section 40-4-11.4, the district court shall reconsider whether 2 Petitioner is entitled to a…”
State ex rel. Human Servs. Dep't v. Kelley, 2003 NMCA 050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “However, Father is not contesting the original order or the arrearage that accrued before he filed his motion.”
Rochester v. Rochester, 1998 NMCA 100 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “{13} To be sure, even when the court’s order in a divorce case does not explicitly provide for continuing jurisdiction, certain types of continuing jurisdiction are provided as a matter of law. For example, district courts in New Mexico have statutory authority to make…”
Ballard v. Ballard (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “It too concluded that Respondent’s current guidelines obligation did not 2 exceed his obligation under the default judgment by more than twenty percent, so 3 NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11.4 (1991), Subsection (A)’s presumption of changed 4 circumstances did not apply.”
Martinez v. Montoya (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “7 {3} Issue 1: Respondent contends that only the first year’s calculation of child 8 support by the district court qualifies as an initial calculation, and that, contrary to our 9 proposed conclusion, the calculations for subsequent years should be considered 10 modifications…”
Parr v. Eridon (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “24 Respondent-Appellant Joseph Eridon (Father) appeals the district court’s order 1 denying his motion to modify child support based upon a substantial change in 2 circumstances, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11.4(A) (1991). We affirm the 3 district court.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
N.M. Stat. § 40-4-11.4(A): 16 cases
Jury v. Jury, 2017 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “If, on remand, the district court’s recalculation of the parties’ gross monthly incomes results in a presumption of material and substantial changes in circumstances under Section 40-4-11.4, the district court shall reconsider whether Petitioner is entitled to a modification of…”
Thompson v. Dehne, 220 P.3d 1132 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “” NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11.4(A) (1991) provides: “A court may modify a child support obligation upon a showing of material and substantial changes in circumstances subsequent to the adjudication of the preexisting order.”
Kerby v. Kerby, 2002 OK 91 (Okla. 2002). “); N.M Stat. Ann. § 40-4-11.4(A) (2001) (A deviation of more than twenty percent of existing support obligation after one year from previous award creates presumption of material and substantial change in circumstance.”
State ex rel. Human Servs. Dep't v. Kelley, 2003 NMCA 050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). “However, Father is not contesting the original order or the arrearage that accrued before he filed his motion.”
Jury v. Jury (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “If, on remand, the district court’s recalculation of the parties’ gross 19 monthly incomes results in a presumption of material and substantial changes in 2 1 circumstances under Section 40-4-11.4, the district court shall reconsider whether 2 Petitioner is entitled to a…”
N.M. Stat. § 40-4-11.4(B): 1 case
Jury v. Jury, 2017 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “If, on remand, the district court’s recalculation of the parties’ gross monthly incomes results in a presumption of material and substantial changes in circumstances under Section 40-4-11.4, the district court shall reconsider whether Petitioner is entitled to a modification of…”
N.M. Stat. § 40-4-11.4(B)(1): 2 cases
Jury v. Jury, 2017 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “If, on remand, the district court’s recalculation of the parties’ gross monthly incomes results in a presumption of material and substantial changes in circumstances under Section 40-4-11.4, the district court shall reconsider whether Petitioner is entitled to a modification of…”
Jury v. Jury (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “If, on remand, the district court’s recalculation of the parties’ gross 19 monthly incomes results in a presumption of material and substantial changes in 2 1 circumstances under Section 40-4-11.4, the district court shall reconsider whether 2 Petitioner is entitled to a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.