Tex. Codes » Family Code · TITLE 5. THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP · SUBTITLE B. SUITS AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP · CHAPTER 154. CHILD SUPPORT
Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 154.069 (2026)

Net Resources Of Spouse

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 154.069. NET RESOURCES OF SPOUSE. (a) The court may not add any portion of the net resources of a spouse to the net resources of an obligor or obligee in order to calculate the amount of child support to be ordered.

(b) The court may not subtract the needs of a spouse, or of a dependent of a spouse, from the net resources of the obligor or obligee.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: In the Interest of J.M.W., 470 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of J.M.W., 470 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App. 2014). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a) ("The court may not add any portion of the net resources of a spouse to the net resources of an obligor or obligee in order to calculate the amount of child support to be ordered”).”
Farish v. Farish, 982 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. App. 1998). “(citing Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a) (Vernon 1996)).”
Butler v. Butler, 975 S.W.2d 765 (Tex. App. 1998). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a) (Vernon 1996).”
in the Interest of J.C.K., a Minor Child, 143 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. App. 2004). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a); cf. Knott, 118 S.”
In the Interest of P.C.S., 320 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. App. 2010). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a) (trial court cannot add any portion of net resources of obligor’s spouse when calculating child support obligation).”
In Re Jck, 143 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. App. 2004). “See TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 154.069(a); cf. Knott, 118 S.”
In Re Pcs, 320 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. App. 2010). “TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 154.069(a) (trial court cannot add any portion of net resources of obligor's spouse when calculating child support obligation).”
Kenneth Koenig v. Deborah Lynn DeBerry (Tex. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.069 (a) (West 2008).”
in the Interest of E.H.G, a Child (Tex. App. 2016). “TEX. FAM. CODE § 154.069; see also Starck v.”
Ryan Squires v. Hillarey McHale (Tex. App. 2024). “The trial court could have found that, while McHale’s monthly stipend from her new husband may incidentally benefit the children, the evidence showed it was not a source of income that McHale could rely upon to support her children in lieu of Squires’s child-support obligation.”
In the Interest of K.W., a Child v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “TEX. FAM. CODE § 154.069. However, when there is a finding of intentional underemployment and “[i]n the absence of evidence of a party’s resources,” the trial court “shall consider relevant background circumstances regarding the obligor.”
in the Interest of J.M.W. (Tex. App. 2015). “15 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.062 (detailing what resources include and do not include).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.069(a) — 7 cases
In the Interest of J.M.W., 470 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App. 2014). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a) ("The court may not add any portion of the net resources of a spouse to the net resources of an obligor or obligee in order to calculate the amount of child support to be ordered”).”
Farish v. Farish, 982 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. App. 1998). “(citing Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a) (Vernon 1996)).”
Butler v. Butler, 975 S.W.2d 765 (Tex. App. 1998). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a) (Vernon 1996).”
in the Interest of J.C.K., a Minor Child, 143 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. App. 2004). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a); cf. Knott, 118 S.”
In the Interest of P.C.S., 320 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. App. 2010). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.069(a) (trial court cannot add any portion of net resources of obligor’s spouse when calculating child support obligation).”
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.