Sec. 154.131. RETROACTIVE CHILD SUPPORT. (a) The child support guidelines are intended to guide the court in determining the amount of retroactive child support, if any, to be ordered.
(b) In ordering retroactive child support, the court shall consider the net resources of the obligor during the relevant time period and whether:
(1) the mother of the child had made any previous attempts to notify the obligor of his paternity or probable paternity;
(2) the obligor had knowledge of his paternity or probable paternity;
(3) the order of retroactive child support will impose an undue financial hardship on the obligor or the obligor's family; and
(4) the obligor has provided actual support or other necessaries before the filing of the action.
(c) It is presumed that a court order limiting the amount of retroactive child support to an amount that does not exceed the total amount of support that would have been due for the four years preceding the date the petition seeking support was filed is reasonable and in the best interest of the child.
(d) The presumption created under this section may be rebutted by evidence that the obligor:
(1) knew or should have known that the obligor was the father of the child for whom support is sought; and
(2) sought to avoid the establishment of a support obligation to the child.
(e) An order under this section limiting the amount of retroactive support does not constitute a variance from the guidelines requiring the court to make specific findings under Section 154.130.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle, the court retains jurisdiction to render an order for retroactive child support in a suit if a petition requesting retroactive child support is filed not later than the fourth anniversary of the date of the child's 18th birthday.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 392, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 2.14, eff. June 14, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1023, Sec. 9, eff; Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 972 (S.B. 228), Sec. 11(a), eff. September 1, 2007.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
61
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case:
Garza v. Blanton, 55 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App. 2001).
Garza v. Blanton, 55 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App. 2001).
· cites it 10× “At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to award retroactive child support. Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the guidelines imposing retroactive support found in the Texas Family Code.”
Nordstrom v. Nordstrom, 965 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.131 (Vernon 1996).”
Duran v. Garcia, 224 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 154.131. Duran testified he gave Garcia cash on various occasions in amounts ranging from $40 to $100 per week.”
In the Interest of J.H., 961 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. App. 1997).
· cites it 5× “From the statutory language emphasized above, it is clear that the trial court has discretion in deciding whether to award retroactive child support and in deciding the amount of such an award.”
In Re B.R., 327 S.W.3d 208 (Tex. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “See TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 154.131(c) (Vernon 2008).”
In Re Guthrie, 45 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App. 2001).
“Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.131 (a) (Vernon 1996).”
In the Interest of Valadez, 980 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.131 (a) (Vernon 1996) (emphasis added).”
In the Interest of S.E.W., 960 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 154.131 (Vernon 1996) provides: (a) The child support guidelines are intended to guide the court in determining the amount of retroactive child support, if any, to be ordered.”
In the Interest of J.H., 264 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 154.131(a) (Vernon Supp.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.131(a) — 8 cases
In the Interest of J.H., 961 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. App. 1997).
“From the statutory language emphasized above, it is clear that the trial court has discretion in deciding whether to award retroactive child support and in deciding the amount of such an award.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.131(b) — 16 cases
In the Interest of J.H., 961 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. App. 1997).
“From the statutory language emphasized above, it is clear that the trial court has discretion in deciding whether to award retroactive child support and in deciding the amount of such an award.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.131(b)(1) — 1 case
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.131(b)(2) — 1 case
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.131(b)(3) — 4 cases
In the Interest of J.H., 961 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. App. 1997).
“From the statutory language emphasized above, it is clear that the trial court has discretion in deciding whether to award retroactive child support and in deciding the amount of such an award.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.131(b)(4) — 6 cases
Garza v. Blanton, 55 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App. 2001).
“At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to award retroactive child support. Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the guidelines imposing retroactive support found in the Texas Family Code.”
In the Interest of J.H., 961 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. App. 1997).
“From the statutory language emphasized above, it is clear that the trial court has discretion in deciding whether to award retroactive child support and in deciding the amount of such an award.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.131(c) — 11 cases
Duran v. Garcia, 224 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App. 2005).
“tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 154.131. Duran testified he gave Garcia cash on various occasions in amounts ranging from $40 to $100 per week.”
In Re B.R., 327 S.W.3d 208 (Tex. App. 2010).
“See TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 154.131(c) (Vernon 2008).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.131(c)(d) — 2 cases
In Re B.R., 327 S.W.3d 208 (Tex. App. 2010).
“See TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 154.131(c) (Vernon 2008).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 154.131(d) — 4 cases
In Re B.R., 327 S.W.3d 208 (Tex. App. 2010).
“See TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 154.131(c) (Vernon 2008).”
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.