Alaska Child Support Calculator

Calculate child support in Alaska from the state's own published guideline. The estimate adjusts for parenting time.

Last updated: Alaska cost figures are our own estimates, not independently verified

Alaska divorces typically cost 22% less than the national average of $12,900.

Child Support in Alaska

Formula
Percentage of Income Model
Where the formula stops
$138,000/yr
Equal parenting presumption, in our record
No
Property system, in our record
Equitable distribution

Child Support Calculator in Alaska: What You Should Know

Alaska is one of a small group of states that uses the Percentage of Income Model, applied to the paying parent's adjusted annual income. Adjusted income means gross income minus taxes and certain mandatory deductions, so the percentage applies to a figure below gross pay. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(2) sets it at 20 percent for one child, 27 for two and 33 for three, and then adds three points for each further child, so five children draw 39 percent and six draw 42. There is no top tier, which is unusual: most percentage states stop their list at five or more children. The figures on this page are read from that rule. Two limits are worth knowing before you use one. Rule 90.3 runs on adjusted annual income and this calculator collects gross monthly pay, so our figure sits above what a court would reach on the same household. And the percentage stops at $138,000 of adjusted annual income, above which a court may add to the amount but may not go below it. Shared custody runs on a separate formula once the children spend at least 30 percent but no more than 70 percent of the year with each parent.

Key point: Alaska applies a flat percentage of the paying parent's adjusted income rather than combining both incomes, at 20 percent for one child rising by three points for each child above three with no top tier.

1
2

Tell us the basics

Locked to Alaska on this page.

Who is paying child support?

Use your gross (before-tax) monthly income. If you are paid annually, divide by 12.

Use their gross (before-tax) monthly income. If they are paid annually, divide by 12.

This helps us describe how income is treated. It does not change the estimate: we calculate on the income figures you entered and do not impute income to anyone.

This estimate is for planning purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Consult a licensed family law attorney in your state for guidance specific to your situation.

How Alaska calculates child support

Alaska sets child support with the Percentage of Income Model, and we have read the guideline that says so, which means a fixed percentage set by the number of children is applied to the paying parent's income alone. Here is what that looks like in practice.

Calculated from the state's published guideline

Alaska is calculated from the state's own rule, and there is no schedule behind it to transcribe. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3 sets support as a percentage of one parent's income: 20 percent for one child, 27 for two, 33 for three, and "an extra 3% (.03) for each additional child" after that. The rule was adopted by SCO 833, effective August 1, 1987 and last amended by SCO 1939, effective nunc pro tunc September 13, 2018, and the copy we read is stamped current as of October 16, 2023. The ceiling, the minimum order, the shared custody formula and the custody categories all come off the same document.

Note where that list of percentages ends, because it does not. Most percentage states publish a top tier: Mississippi's statute reads "5 or more", so a sixth child adds nothing. Alaska's rule keeps going, so four children is 36 percent, five is 39 and six is 42. This site used to hold Alaska as a list of five numbers ending at 40 percent, which was right up to four children and wrong at five, and that is the whole reason the rates now live as three figures and an increment rather than as a list.

The biggest limit on the number is which income it runs on, and it is worth reading before the number rather than after it. Alaska applies the percentage to ADJUSTED ANNUAL income under Rule 90.3(a)(1): total income from all sources, less mandatory deductions, retirement contributions up to 7.5 percent of total income, your own health premiums up to 10 percent, and life insurance naming the children up to $1,200 a year. This calculator collects gross monthly pay and none of those deductions, and Alaska publishes no gross-to-net conversion table the way Illinois does. So we annualise your gross figure and say so, rather than guessing at deductions. Adjusted income is always below gross, which makes our figure HIGHER than an Alaska court would reach on the same household, and the gap grows with the size of your deductions.

The same substitution decides where the ceiling falls, and the choice was made deliberately rather than by default. Rule 90.3(c)(2) says paragraph (a) "does not apply to the extent that the parent has an adjusted annual income of over $138,000", and that above it a court "may make an additional award only if it is just and proper". We apply that limit and we test it against annualised gross rather than against adjusted income, so we reach the ceiling earlier than the rule does, and a parent with substantial deductions can be told the formula has stopped when on their real figures it has not. Leaving the ceiling off entirely. That would show a parent at $400,000 of gross income twenty percent of the whole of it, which 90.3(c)(2) says paragraph (a) does not do. An overstated figure is a smaller error than a figure the rule denies producing at all. Above the line the figure is a floor rather than a cap, because the rule allows an addition and nothing else, and there is no table here for it to be the top row of.

Two mechanisms below the top of the range that most summaries leave out. There is a minimum order of $50 a month, $600 a year, under Rule 90.3(c)(3), and it is for ALL the children covered by the order rather than for each of them, which is the opposite of Hawaii. It carries two exceptions, and one of them is structural: it does not apply to any figure computed under paragraph (b), which is every shared custody case. And there is a low income adjustment at Rule 90.3(a)(5) for a parent with total annual income of $30,000 or less, which sets adjusted income at the lesser of the ordinary deduction calculation or total income minus $7,500. That is a disregard rather than a reserve, it only helps where the ordinary deductions come to less than $7,500, and evaluating it needs the deduction total this form does not collect, so we tell an eligible reader it is in play instead of applying it.

Three things we have not applied, said plainly rather than filled in. Rule 90.3(d) governs how health care costs are allocated between parents, and the only part of it we have read is the presumption at (d)(1)(A)(i) that the children's coverage is reasonable in cost up to 5 percent of the purchasing parent's adjusted annual income, so we test a premium against that figure and apply no credit for it. Rule 90.3(d)(2) then splits uncovered health care EQUALLY between the parents rather than by income share, with reimbursement due within 30 days and a reallocation above $5,000 a year, which almost no other state does and which we disclose rather than model. And subparagraph (a)(3) allows a reduction of up to 75 percent for extended visitation of over 27 consecutive days, which turns on consecutive days and on an amount the order has to state in advance, neither of which this form carries.

Alaska also has four custody categories where this calculator has two. Alongside primary and shared, DIVIDED custody is each parent having primary custody of at least one child and HYBRID is a mixture of the two, and both need a per-child arrangement rather than one overnight figure for one group of children. And a note about the instrument itself that matters more here than it would elsewhere: this is a COURT RULE, it says it "may be superseded by legislation", it already carries seven notes recording statutes that amended it in effect, and SB 46 would repeal it outright while keeping the same percentages. Checking Alaska means checking two sources rather than one.

Source: Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3

The Percentage of Income Model skips the combined-income step entirely. A fixed percentage, set by the number of children being supported, is applied to the paying parent's income on its own. The receiving parent's earnings do not enter the arithmetic. That makes the guideline figure far easier to predict in advance, and it is the reason two families with identical total income can end up with very different orders depending on which parent earns what.

The trade-off is that the model is blind to the other side of the household. A paying parent whose former spouse out-earns them by a wide margin arrives at the same guideline number as one supporting a parent with no income at all. Courts hold the discretion to depart from the guideline figure when the result does not fit the family, and a large income disparity in the receiving parent's favor is one of the situations where a departure gets argued.

Credits still apply on top of the percentage. Health insurance premiums for the children reduce the obligation, as does support already ordered for children from an earlier relationship. Where the state's guideline accounts for parenting time, substantial time with the paying parent reduces it further.

The figure Alaska's own guideline works from is adjusted annual income, under Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(1).

Alaska guideline rates by number of children

Alaska child support percentages applied to the paying parent's income, by number of children
ChildrenShare of income
1 child20%
2 children27%
3 children33%
4 children36%
5 children39%
6 children42%

What moves the number in Alaska

  • The paying parent's income (the receiving parent's income is not part of the formula)
  • Number of children covered by the order
  • The paying parent's share of overnights
  • Health insurance for the children, under a rule this estimate does not apply
  • Support already ordered for children from another relationship

Income limits and judicial discretion

Alaska does set a line, and it is stated in a way that does not fit the column above. Rule 90.3(c)(2) says paragraph (a) "does not apply to the extent that the parent has an adjusted annual income of over $138,000", and above it the court "may make an additional award only if it is just and proper". So the percentage stops there, the discretion runs upward only, and the figure at that point is a minimum a court adds to rather than a limit on what it can order. Two things about the number itself: it is ANNUAL where nearly every other state states its ceiling monthly, and it sits on ONE parent's income rather than on the two combined, so a second earner cannot push a family over it. Alaska gives judges a moderate amount of room on custody and parenting time, so expect the order to start from the guideline figure and move with the facts of the case.

Alaska child support examples

These three examples run through the same Alaska calculator on this page, so the figures match what the tool returns for the same entries. Each example changes one thing against the one before it, so you can see which lever moved the result. All three assume a standard schedule of 80 overnights a year with the paying parent, and Alaska's own parenting-time rule is applied to every figure below rather than left off it. At this count the rule does not reach, so these are complete guideline amounts rather than amounts waiting for an adjustment. The table further down the page is where the count starts to move the number, and it shows where.

Example 1: One child, standard schedule

The starting point: one child, a moderate income gap, and no insurance or childcare in the order yet.

Paying parent
$5,000/mo
Other parent
$3,000/mo
Children
1
Overnights
80/yr

Guideline result: $1,000 per month ($12,000 a year).

Step by step breakdown for example 1
StepAmount
Your gross monthly income$5,000
20 percent of that for 1 child$1,000
  • With 80 days a year you have the children 21.9 percent of the time, below Alaska's 30 percent shared custody line, so the other parent has primary custody under Rule 90.3(f)(2) and support is the flat percentage in paragraph (a). The figure steps at that boundary rather than sliding toward it, so a few days either side of it can be worth a great deal.
  • Alaska's shared custody band is closed at both ends, which is unusual and is the part most summaries leave out. Rule 90.3(f)(1) defines shared physical custody as the children residing with a parent "for a period specified in writing in the custody order of at least 30, but no more than 70, percent of the year". Go above 70 percent and the other parent drops below 30 percent, so you have primary custody and the flat percentage applies again with the roles swapped. Both ends are the same boundary seen from the two households, which is why the two numbers add to 100. On a 365-day year the top of the band works out at 255.5 days, so a schedule of 256 days or more takes a case out of it. That division is ours: the rule states the percentage and no Alaska document we have seen puts a day count on the upper end. And note the rule's own words, because they decide cases that sit near either boundary. The period has to be "specified in writing in the custody order", so what governs is the schedule on paper rather than how the nights actually fall.
  • One thing about that 30 percent line, because Alaska states it in two forms and only one of them is binding. Rule 90.3 itself gives a percentage and no day count. The figure of 110 overnights comes from the Commentary to Civil Rule 90.3 and Form DR-310, the court's own instruction booklet, both published by the Alaska Court System, and the Commentary says on its face that it "has not been adopted or approved by the Supreme Court, but is published by the court for informational purposes". So 110 is a real number from the court and it is not the rule. Where it comes from is a division anyone can check: 30 percent of 365 days is 109.5, and the court rounded up. We compare percentages here, because that is the form the rule uses. If you are relying on the day count in a negotiation, cite the Commentary or Form DR-310 for it rather than the rule, and expect the other side to be able to say the Supreme Court never adopted it.
  • The biggest limit on the number above is which income it runs on. Alaska applies its percentage to ADJUSTED ANNUAL income under Rule 90.3(a)(1): total income from all sources, less mandatory deductions, retirement contributions up to 7.5 percent of total income, your own health premiums up to 10 percent, and life insurance naming the children up to $1,200 a year. This calculator collects gross monthly pay and none of those deductions, and Alaska publishes no gross-to-net conversion table the way Illinois does, so we have used your gross figure multiplied by twelve rather than guessing at your deductions. Adjusted income is always lower than gross, so the figure above is HIGHER than an Alaska court would reach on the same household, and the gap grows with the size of your deductions.
  • That same substitution decides where the ceiling falls, which is why it is worth saying twice. Rule 90.3(c)(2) puts the $138,000 line on adjusted annual income, and we test it against annualised gross, which is the larger of the two. So we reach the ceiling earlier than the rule does. A parent with substantial deductions can be told here that the formula has stopped when on their real adjusted income it is still running. It does not apply to you: your gross annualises to about $60,000, which is below the line either way.
  • Alaska's low income adjustment does not reach your case. Rule 90.3(a)(5) applies only where total annual income is $30,000 or less; yours works out at about $60,000. Below that line adjusted income becomes the lesser of the ordinary deduction calculation or total income minus $7,500, which is a disregard rather than the reserve most states use.
  • Alaska's minimum order is $50 a month, $600 a year, under Rule 90.3(c)(3), and the percentage came out above it on your figures so it did not bite. It is a minimum for all the children covered by the order rather than one per child.
  • One Alaska rule about medical costs that is worth knowing because almost nowhere else does it this way. Rule 90.3(d)(2) splits health care costs not covered by insurance EQUALLY between the parents, with reimbursement due within 30 days, rather than in proportion to income the way most states do. Above $5,000 in a calendar year those costs are reallocated by the parents' relative financial circumstances. So a lower-earning parent in Alaska carries half of an uncovered bill that a lower-earning parent elsewhere would carry a quarter of.
  • Three parts of Rule 90.3 this estimate does not reach. There is a credit of up to 75 percent for extended visitation of over 27 consecutive days under subparagraph (a)(3), which turns on consecutive days and on an amount the order itself has to state in advance, and which is one of the two things that can take an order below the $50 minimum. There are caps on the deductions that reach adjusted income, listed above, which we cannot apply because we do not collect the deductions. And Alaska has four custody categories rather than two: alongside primary and shared, DIVIDED custody is each parent having primary custody of at least one child, and HYBRID is a mixture of the two. This form carries one overnight figure for one group of children, so it cannot express either.
  • Two things about the instrument itself, both of which matter more in Alaska than they would elsewhere. Support here is set by a COURT RULE rather than a statute, Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3, adopted by SCO 833, effective August 1, 1987 and last amended by SCO 1939, effective nunc pro tunc September 13, 2018; the copy we work from is stamped current as of October 16, 2023. And the rule expects to be overridden: it says it "may be superseded by legislation even if the legislation does not meet the procedural requirements for changing rules", and it already carries seven notes recording statutes that have had the effect of amending it. SB 46 would repeal it outright and put the same percentages into statute. We have not been able to confirm what happened to that bill, so if you are citing Alaska law rather than reading a figure, check the statutes as well as the rule.
  • An existing Alaska order can be revisited under Rule 90.3(h)(1), which presumes a material change of circumstances where the guideline would now produce an amount more than 15 percent different from the existing order. That test expressly counts health insurance payments, so a change in who carries the children's coverage can be enough on its own.
  • The employment status you selected has not changed the estimate above. You had to answer to get here, and whichever answer you picked the figure is the same: we calculate on the income figures you entered and impute nothing to either parent. Courts can impute. Where a judge finds a parent voluntarily unemployed or under-employed, a court may set support on what that parent could earn rather than on what they currently bring in, and an imputed figure is set at or above actual earnings rather than below them. Which way that would move your case depends on whose income gets imputed, and that is the part we cannot answer for you: if it is the paying party's, the figure above tends to sit below what a court would order, and if it is the receiving party's it can move in either direction depending on the state and on the two incomes, so we do not put a direction on it. We have read the imputation provision in Illinois and in no other state, Alaska included, so nothing on this page is adjusted for one.

Example 2: Two children, same incomes

Identical to the first example except for a second child, which isolates what the second child is worth in this state.

Paying parent
$5,000/mo
Other parent
$3,000/mo
Children
2
Overnights
80/yr

Guideline result: $1,350 per month ($16,200 a year).

Step by step breakdown for example 2
StepAmount
Your gross monthly income$5,000
27 percent of that for 2 children$1,350
  • With 80 days a year you have the children 21.9 percent of the time, below Alaska's 30 percent shared custody line, so the other parent has primary custody under Rule 90.3(f)(2) and support is the flat percentage in paragraph (a). The figure steps at that boundary rather than sliding toward it, so a few days either side of it can be worth a great deal.
  • Alaska's shared custody band is closed at both ends, which is unusual and is the part most summaries leave out. Rule 90.3(f)(1) defines shared physical custody as the children residing with a parent "for a period specified in writing in the custody order of at least 30, but no more than 70, percent of the year". Go above 70 percent and the other parent drops below 30 percent, so you have primary custody and the flat percentage applies again with the roles swapped. Both ends are the same boundary seen from the two households, which is why the two numbers add to 100. On a 365-day year the top of the band works out at 255.5 days, so a schedule of 256 days or more takes a case out of it. That division is ours: the rule states the percentage and no Alaska document we have seen puts a day count on the upper end. And note the rule's own words, because they decide cases that sit near either boundary. The period has to be "specified in writing in the custody order", so what governs is the schedule on paper rather than how the nights actually fall.
  • One thing about that 30 percent line, because Alaska states it in two forms and only one of them is binding. Rule 90.3 itself gives a percentage and no day count. The figure of 110 overnights comes from the Commentary to Civil Rule 90.3 and Form DR-310, the court's own instruction booklet, both published by the Alaska Court System, and the Commentary says on its face that it "has not been adopted or approved by the Supreme Court, but is published by the court for informational purposes". So 110 is a real number from the court and it is not the rule. Where it comes from is a division anyone can check: 30 percent of 365 days is 109.5, and the court rounded up. We compare percentages here, because that is the form the rule uses. If you are relying on the day count in a negotiation, cite the Commentary or Form DR-310 for it rather than the rule, and expect the other side to be able to say the Supreme Court never adopted it.
  • The biggest limit on the number above is which income it runs on. Alaska applies its percentage to ADJUSTED ANNUAL income under Rule 90.3(a)(1): total income from all sources, less mandatory deductions, retirement contributions up to 7.5 percent of total income, your own health premiums up to 10 percent, and life insurance naming the children up to $1,200 a year. This calculator collects gross monthly pay and none of those deductions, and Alaska publishes no gross-to-net conversion table the way Illinois does, so we have used your gross figure multiplied by twelve rather than guessing at your deductions. Adjusted income is always lower than gross, so the figure above is HIGHER than an Alaska court would reach on the same household, and the gap grows with the size of your deductions.
  • That same substitution decides where the ceiling falls, which is why it is worth saying twice. Rule 90.3(c)(2) puts the $138,000 line on adjusted annual income, and we test it against annualised gross, which is the larger of the two. So we reach the ceiling earlier than the rule does. A parent with substantial deductions can be told here that the formula has stopped when on their real adjusted income it is still running. It does not apply to you: your gross annualises to about $60,000, which is below the line either way.
  • Alaska's low income adjustment does not reach your case. Rule 90.3(a)(5) applies only where total annual income is $30,000 or less; yours works out at about $60,000. Below that line adjusted income becomes the lesser of the ordinary deduction calculation or total income minus $7,500, which is a disregard rather than the reserve most states use.
  • Alaska's minimum order is $50 a month, $600 a year, under Rule 90.3(c)(3), and the percentage came out above it on your figures so it did not bite. It is a minimum for all the children covered by the order rather than one per child.
  • One Alaska rule about medical costs that is worth knowing because almost nowhere else does it this way. Rule 90.3(d)(2) splits health care costs not covered by insurance EQUALLY between the parents, with reimbursement due within 30 days, rather than in proportion to income the way most states do. Above $5,000 in a calendar year those costs are reallocated by the parents' relative financial circumstances. So a lower-earning parent in Alaska carries half of an uncovered bill that a lower-earning parent elsewhere would carry a quarter of.
  • Three parts of Rule 90.3 this estimate does not reach. There is a credit of up to 75 percent for extended visitation of over 27 consecutive days under subparagraph (a)(3), which turns on consecutive days and on an amount the order itself has to state in advance, and which is one of the two things that can take an order below the $50 minimum. There are caps on the deductions that reach adjusted income, listed above, which we cannot apply because we do not collect the deductions. And Alaska has four custody categories rather than two: alongside primary and shared, DIVIDED custody is each parent having primary custody of at least one child, and HYBRID is a mixture of the two. This form carries one overnight figure for one group of children, so it cannot express either.
  • Two things about the instrument itself, both of which matter more in Alaska than they would elsewhere. Support here is set by a COURT RULE rather than a statute, Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3, adopted by SCO 833, effective August 1, 1987 and last amended by SCO 1939, effective nunc pro tunc September 13, 2018; the copy we work from is stamped current as of October 16, 2023. And the rule expects to be overridden: it says it "may be superseded by legislation even if the legislation does not meet the procedural requirements for changing rules", and it already carries seven notes recording statutes that have had the effect of amending it. SB 46 would repeal it outright and put the same percentages into statute. We have not been able to confirm what happened to that bill, so if you are citing Alaska law rather than reading a figure, check the statutes as well as the rule.
  • An existing Alaska order can be revisited under Rule 90.3(h)(1), which presumes a material change of circumstances where the guideline would now produce an amount more than 15 percent different from the existing order. That test expressly counts health insurance payments, so a change in who carries the children's coverage can be enough on its own.
  • The employment status you selected has not changed the estimate above. You had to answer to get here, and whichever answer you picked the figure is the same: we calculate on the income figures you entered and impute nothing to either parent. Courts can impute. Where a judge finds a parent voluntarily unemployed or under-employed, a court may set support on what that parent could earn rather than on what they currently bring in, and an imputed figure is set at or above actual earnings rather than below them. Which way that would move your case depends on whose income gets imputed, and that is the part we cannot answer for you: if it is the paying party's, the figure above tends to sit below what a court would order, and if it is the receiving party's it can move in either direction depending on the state and on the two incomes, so we do not put a direction on it. We have read the imputation provision in Illinois and in no other state, Alaska included, so nothing on this page is adjusted for one.

Example 3: Two children, higher-earning paying parent, insurance and childcare

The paying parent now earns considerably more, and carries the health insurance and work-related childcare, which are credited back against the obligation.

Paying parent
$12,000/mo
Other parent
$3,000/mo
Children
2
Overnights
80/yr

Guideline result: $3,105 per month ($37,260 a year).

Step by step breakdown for example 3
StepAmount
Your gross monthly income$12,000
Income the percentage runs on, limited to $138,000 a year$11,500
27 percent of that for 2 children$3,105
  • With 80 days a year you have the children 21.9 percent of the time, below Alaska's 30 percent shared custody line, so the other parent has primary custody under Rule 90.3(f)(2) and support is the flat percentage in paragraph (a). The figure steps at that boundary rather than sliding toward it, so a few days either side of it can be worth a great deal.
  • Alaska's shared custody band is closed at both ends, which is unusual and is the part most summaries leave out. Rule 90.3(f)(1) defines shared physical custody as the children residing with a parent "for a period specified in writing in the custody order of at least 30, but no more than 70, percent of the year". Go above 70 percent and the other parent drops below 30 percent, so you have primary custody and the flat percentage applies again with the roles swapped. Both ends are the same boundary seen from the two households, which is why the two numbers add to 100. On a 365-day year the top of the band works out at 255.5 days, so a schedule of 256 days or more takes a case out of it. That division is ours: the rule states the percentage and no Alaska document we have seen puts a day count on the upper end. And note the rule's own words, because they decide cases that sit near either boundary. The period has to be "specified in writing in the custody order", so what governs is the schedule on paper rather than how the nights actually fall.
  • One thing about that 30 percent line, because Alaska states it in two forms and only one of them is binding. Rule 90.3 itself gives a percentage and no day count. The figure of 110 overnights comes from the Commentary to Civil Rule 90.3 and Form DR-310, the court's own instruction booklet, both published by the Alaska Court System, and the Commentary says on its face that it "has not been adopted or approved by the Supreme Court, but is published by the court for informational purposes". So 110 is a real number from the court and it is not the rule. Where it comes from is a division anyone can check: 30 percent of 365 days is 109.5, and the court rounded up. We compare percentages here, because that is the form the rule uses. If you are relying on the day count in a negotiation, cite the Commentary or Form DR-310 for it rather than the rule, and expect the other side to be able to say the Supreme Court never adopted it.
  • The biggest limit on the number above is which income it runs on. Alaska applies its percentage to ADJUSTED ANNUAL income under Rule 90.3(a)(1): total income from all sources, less mandatory deductions, retirement contributions up to 7.5 percent of total income, your own health premiums up to 10 percent, and life insurance naming the children up to $1,200 a year. This calculator collects gross monthly pay and none of those deductions, and Alaska publishes no gross-to-net conversion table the way Illinois does, so we have used your gross figure multiplied by twelve rather than guessing at your deductions. Adjusted income is always lower than gross, so the figure above is HIGHER than an Alaska court would reach on the same household, and the gap grows with the size of your deductions.
  • That same substitution decides where the ceiling falls, which is why it is worth saying twice. Rule 90.3(c)(2) puts the $138,000 line on adjusted annual income, and we test it against annualised gross, which is the larger of the two. So we reach the ceiling earlier than the rule does. A parent with substantial deductions can be told here that the formula has stopped when on their real adjusted income it is still running. That applies to you: your gross annualises to about $144,000, which is above the line, and your adjusted figure may not be.
  • Alaska's low income adjustment does not reach your case. Rule 90.3(a)(5) applies only where total annual income is $30,000 or less; yours works out at about $144,000. Below that line adjusted income becomes the lesser of the ordinary deduction calculation or total income minus $7,500, which is a disregard rather than the reserve most states use.
  • Alaska's minimum order is $50 a month, $600 a year, under Rule 90.3(c)(3), and the percentage came out above it on your figures so it did not bite. It is a minimum for all the children covered by the order rather than one per child.
  • The health insurance premium you entered, $280 a month, is within the 5 percent of income that Rule 90.3(d)(1)(A)(i) presumes reasonable for the children's coverage. That presumption is rebuttable in both directions.
  • Neither the insurance nor the childcare you entered has changed the figure above, and that is a limit of what we have read rather than a statement about Alaska law. Rule 90.3(d) governs how health care costs are allocated between parents, and we have read only the 5 percent reasonableness presumption out of it. Rather than invent an allocation, we have applied none, so treat the number above as the support obligation before anything is done about health care or childcare. A real Alaska order will deal with both.
  • One Alaska rule about medical costs that is worth knowing because almost nowhere else does it this way. Rule 90.3(d)(2) splits health care costs not covered by insurance EQUALLY between the parents, with reimbursement due within 30 days, rather than in proportion to income the way most states do. Above $5,000 in a calendar year those costs are reallocated by the parents' relative financial circumstances. So a lower-earning parent in Alaska carries half of an uncovered bill that a lower-earning parent elsewhere would carry a quarter of.
  • Three parts of Rule 90.3 this estimate does not reach. There is a credit of up to 75 percent for extended visitation of over 27 consecutive days under subparagraph (a)(3), which turns on consecutive days and on an amount the order itself has to state in advance, and which is one of the two things that can take an order below the $50 minimum. There are caps on the deductions that reach adjusted income, listed above, which we cannot apply because we do not collect the deductions. And Alaska has four custody categories rather than two: alongside primary and shared, DIVIDED custody is each parent having primary custody of at least one child, and HYBRID is a mixture of the two. This form carries one overnight figure for one group of children, so it cannot express either.
  • Two things about the instrument itself, both of which matter more in Alaska than they would elsewhere. Support here is set by a COURT RULE rather than a statute, Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3, adopted by SCO 833, effective August 1, 1987 and last amended by SCO 1939, effective nunc pro tunc September 13, 2018; the copy we work from is stamped current as of October 16, 2023. And the rule expects to be overridden: it says it "may be superseded by legislation even if the legislation does not meet the procedural requirements for changing rules", and it already carries seven notes recording statutes that have had the effect of amending it. SB 46 would repeal it outright and put the same percentages into statute. We have not been able to confirm what happened to that bill, so if you are citing Alaska law rather than reading a figure, check the statutes as well as the rule.
  • An existing Alaska order can be revisited under Rule 90.3(h)(1), which presumes a material change of circumstances where the guideline would now produce an amount more than 15 percent different from the existing order. That test expressly counts health insurance payments, so a change in who carries the children's coverage can be enough on its own.
  • The employment status you selected has not changed the estimate above. You had to answer to get here, and whichever answer you picked the figure is the same: we calculate on the income figures you entered and impute nothing to either parent. Courts can impute. Where a judge finds a parent voluntarily unemployed or under-employed, a court may set support on what that parent could earn rather than on what they currently bring in, and an imputed figure is set at or above actual earnings rather than below them. Which way that would move your case depends on whose income gets imputed, and that is the part we cannot answer for you: if it is the paying party's, the figure above tends to sit below what a court would order, and if it is the receiving party's it can move in either direction depending on the state and on the two incomes, so we do not put a direction on it. We have read the imputation provision in Illinois and in no other state, Alaska included, so nothing on this page is adjusted for one.

Comparing the first two examples shows what a second child is worth in Alaska: the order moves from $1,000 to $1,350a month on identical incomes. The third example raises the paying parent's earnings and adds health insurance and childcare, which are credited back against the obligation rather than added on top of it.

How parenting time changes support in Alaska

Alaska adjusts support for parenting time, and we compute the adjustment, because we have read the rule out of the state's own published guidelines rather than inferring it. The mechanism is a cliff. Below 30 percent of the year the calculation runs on the flat percentage in paragraph (a) and parenting time does not enter it at all. At 30 percent of the year it switches to the shared custody calculation in paragraph (b)(1), which gives each parent the amount they would pay the other under paragraph (a) if the other had primary custody, weights each of those by the share of the year the children spend with the OTHER parent, and has the parent with the larger figure pay the difference multiplied by 1.5, with the result never allowed to exceed what that parent would pay under primary custody. The figure steps at that boundary rather than sliding toward it, so a single day can be worth several hundred dollars a month.

The part that catches parents out is that BOTH parents have to clear 30 percent of the year, not just the one asking for the adjustment, and in Alaska that rule is written from both directions at once. Under Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(f) the shared route turns on the children residing with each parent for a period specified in writing in the custody order of at least 30, but no more than 70, percent of the year. At least 30 percent AND no more than 70 percent, which are the same boundary seen from the two households: go above 70 percent and the other parent falls under 30, so nobody is in shared custody and the flat percentage applies again with the roles swapped. On a 365-day year that turns over at 256 days, which is our division rather than a count the rule states. The table above stops short of it, which is worth knowing: at 250 days you are still inside the band here, where in most cliff states you would have fallen out of it. If you are negotiating toward a particular number of days, check what the schedule leaves the other parent, not only what it gives you.

Note the FORM the threshold takes here, because Alaska states it twice and only one of the two is binding. The rule gives a percentage and no day count: the children residing with each parent for a period specified in writing in the custody order of at least 30, but no more than 70, percent of the year. The figure of 110 overnights that you will see quoted comes from the Commentary to Civil Rule 90.3 and Form DR-310, the court's own instruction booklet, and the Commentary states on its face that it "has not been adopted or approved by the Supreme Court, but is published by the court for informational purposes". So 110 is a real number published by the court and it is not the rule, which is an unusual position for a figure to be in and a useful one to understand. An estimate that uses it is right. A filing that cites it to Rule 90.3 is citing something the rule does not contain. We compare percentages here, because that is the form the rule uses, and 30 percent of 365 days is 109.5 rather than a whole number, which is why the court rounded up to reach 110 in the first place.

Two further Alaska rules are worth knowing before you read the number above. Clearing the line switches off a protection at the same time as it changes the calculation. The $50 monthly minimum order in Rule 90.3(c)(3) applies "except as provided in subparagraph (a)(3) and paragraph (b)", and shared custody is paragraph (b), so there is no floor under a shared custody figure at all. And the cap works the other way: the shared result may never exceed the primary custody amount, which is what stops a parent with the children half the year paying more than a parent with them none of it.

Overnights are the second biggest lever after income, and they are the one parents most often underestimate. The reasoning is straightforward: a parent who has the children a third of the year is already paying for food, utilities, and a bedroom during that time, so the transfer payment to the other household falls to avoid charging twice for the same costs.

The table below runs one family through the Alaska guideline at 6 parenting-time levels. Income is held at $5,000 and $3,000 a month with two children, so the only thing changing between rows is the number of overnights. It follows Alaska's own published rule, and the state's worksheet linked below is still the document a court works from.

Alaska guideline child support at 6 parenting-time levels, holding income and number of children constant
OvernightsArrangementMonthly supportChange
52 (14%)Alternating weekends only$1,350Baseline
80 (22%)Alternating weekends plus a midweek night$1,350Baseline
110 (30%)Extended weekends and half of school breaks$1,049-$301
146 (40%)A 5-2-2-5 rotation, about 40 percent of nights$729-$621
182 (50%)Equal time, week on and week off$409-$941
250 (68%)The children with you most of the year, alternating weekends with the other parent$0-$1,350

The size and the shape of that movement are what parenting-time disputes and support disputes are usually arguing about at the same time, in different clothing.

Where Alaska starts on parenting time

Alaska does not presume equal parenting time. That is our own record rather than Alaska's own custody law. Courts decide the schedule on the best interests of the children, so the overnight count is established case by case rather than assumed. Parents who expect substantial time should treat it as something to be negotiated deliberately, and the section above is what Alaska's own guidelines do with the count you end up with, which is worth reading before you agree to one.

Getting a child support order in Alaska

The guideline figure is only half the picture. When the order actually arrives, and what it costs to argue about it, vary quite a bit from state to state, and both shape what a family lives on in the meantime.

Residency required
No minimum
Waiting period
30 days
Typical uncontested
3 months
Typical contested
about 1.2 years

Support before the case is finished

Alaska sets no minimum residency before filing, and a statutory period of 30 days has to run before a judge can finalize the divorce. States measure that period from different starting points, some from filing, some from service on your spouse, and some from the date the two of you separated, so confirm where Alaska's clock begins. A contested case in Alaska runs about 1.2 years on average, against 3 months when the parents agree. That gap is why temporary support matters. A judge can enter a temporary order early in the case, calculated on the same guideline, so the children are covered while the rest of the case is worked out. If money is tight now, a temporary order is usually the fastest relief available, and waiting for the final judgment can mean months without support.

What it costs to contest the number

Family law attorneys in Alaska typically run $225 to $450 an hour, and mediation costs roughly $250a session. Worth doing the arithmetic before digging in: a handful of billable hours on each side can cost more than a full year of the amount being argued over. Where the disagreement is genuinely large, or where one parent's income is hard to pin down, representation earns its keep. Where the gap between the two positions is a few dozen dollars a month, mediation or a negotiated agreement almost always leaves both households better off. Our record carries collaborative divorce as available in all fifty states, so it says nothing specific about Alaska; whether trained collaborative attorneys practise near you is a local question. Where it is on offer, both parents commit in writing to settle without litigation and use shared financial experts rather than competing ones.

Changing or enforcing an Alaska order

Modifying an existing order

A child support order is not permanent, but it also does not adjust on its own. Either parent can ask the court to recalculate, and the general standard across states is a substantial and continuing change in circumstances since the last order. Job loss, a significant raise, a change in the parenting schedule, a new child support obligation for another child, and a change in the children's medical or childcare costs are the changes that most often qualify.

Two points catch parents out. The first is that a modification usually takes effect from the date the request is filed, not the date the circumstances changed, so waiting to file means absorbing the gap. The second is that the obligation continues in full until a judge signs a new order. An informal agreement between parents to pay less does not bind the court, and arrears can still accrue against the paying parent for the difference.

Enforcement

Enforcement runs through Alaska's child support agency as well as the courts. Federal law requires every state to run a child support enforcement program with a common set of tools, which is why the remedies look broadly similar from state to state: income withholding straight from wages, interception of federal and state tax refunds, reporting to credit bureaus, suspension of driver's and professional licenses, liens against property, and contempt proceedings for willful non-payment. Income withholding is the default for new orders in most cases rather than a penalty applied after a missed payment.

Alaska guideline authority and official worksheet

Alaska carries its child support guideline across more than one instrument, and all of them are in our data:

  • Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3
  • Commentary to Alaska Civil Rule 90.3

Those authorities control, and the worksheet published under them is the document a court works from. The estimate on this page models the guideline, it does not replace the worksheet.

Alaska keeps its guideline in a court rule rather than a statute, and the rule is what carries the figures. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3 was adopted by SCO 833, effective August 1, 1987 and last amended by SCO 1939, effective nunc pro tunc September 13, 2018; the copy the court serves is stamped current as of October 16, 2023. Rule 90.3(a)(2) sets 20, 27 and 33 percent for one, two and three children and then adds 3 percentage points for each further child, with no top tier. Four children is 36 percent, five is 39 and six is 42. The Alaska Court System also publishes the calculation on forms DR-306 and DR-310, which is where most parents meet it.

A rule is not a statute, and in Alaska that difference does work. Rule 90.3 says of itself that it "may be superseded by legislation even if the legislation does not meet the procedural requirements for changing rules", and it already carries seven notes recording statutes that have had the effect of amending it. So checking Alaska means checking the session laws as well as the rule, which is not true of a state whose guideline is a statute in the first place.

SB 46 is the change to watch for, because it would move every citation without moving a single number. Two texts on the Legislature's site, SB0046A and a House Health and Social Services committee substitute, would repeal Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3 and enact AS 25 ch. 28, carrying the 20, 27 and 33 percent rates into statute. We have not been able to confirm what happened to either. If it passed, a reference to Rule 90.3 is wrong even though the percentages behind it survived, so check whether you are being pointed at a rule or a statute before relying on either.

One figure worth knowing the status of before you quote it. The 30 percent shared custody line appears in Rule 90.3(f)(1) as a percentage of the year and nowhere as a day count. The 110-overnight version of it comes from the Commentary to Civil Rule 90.3 and Form DR-310, the court's own instruction booklet, and the Commentary states on its face that it "has not been adopted or approved by the Supreme Court, but is published by the court for informational purposes". The court publishes it, so it is not somebody's arithmetic. The court has not adopted it, so it is not the rule.

Where to get the official worksheet

Every state publishes a child support worksheet or an official calculator, and that document is what a judge or the state agency works from. We do not yet have a verified direct link to Alaska's worksheet, so the starting points below are the state's own court site and the federal directory of state child support agencies rather than a deep link we cannot vouch for.

Child Support in Alaska - Frequently Asked Questions

How is child support calculated in Alaska?

Alaska uses the Percentage of Income Model to calculate child support, and we have read the guideline that says so. On the rates in our data, child support is a fixed percentage of the paying parent's income, ranging from 20% for one child upward for additional children. The figure Alaska's own guideline works from is adjusted annual income, under Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(1).

Does Alaska use the income shares model?

No. Alaska is a percentage of income state rather than an income shares one. Support is a fixed percentage of the paying parent's income, set by the number of children, and the receiving parent's income is not part of the formula. That makes the guideline figure easier to predict than in an income shares state, but it does not adjust when the other parent earns significantly more or less.

How do overnights affect child support in Alaska?

They change it, and the calculator on this page changes with them, because we have read Alaska's own rule rather than inferring one. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(f) switches the calculation onto a different route once the parenting time reaches a set threshold, and the figure steps at that boundary rather than sliding toward it. The catch worth knowing before you plan around it is that BOTH parents have to clear the line, not only the one asking for the adjustment, so a schedule giving one parent far more than half the year can put the case outside the shared route entirely. Move the overnight slider above and you will see the figure change. The parenting time section on this page sets out the threshold, the wording of the boundary and what happens either side of it.

How much is child support for 2 children in Alaska?

It depends on the incomes involved, so there is no single figure. As a worked example, two children with the paying parent earning $5,000 gross a month, the other parent earning $3,000, and a standard 80-overnight schedule produces an estimate of $1,350 a month ($16,200 a year) under Alaska's guideline. Change the incomes and the number moves. So does changing the overnights, because Alaska's own parenting-time rule is read from the state's guideline and applied here. Run your own figures in the calculator on this page.

Can child support be modified in Alaska?

Yes. Either parent can request a child support modification if there has been a substantial change in circumstances, such as a significant change in income, change in custody arrangements, or changes in the child's needs. Courts in Alaska typically require a change of at least 15-20% in the support amount to justify modification.

Does custody arrangement affect child support in Alaska?

Yes, twice over: it sets which parent pays, and it changes the amount. Alaska's own rule for how it changes the amount is read from the state's guideline and applied in the calculator on this page, so the arrangement you enter moves the figure rather than leaving it standing. The parenting time section above sets out what the rule actually turns on, which is worth reading before you agree to a schedule: in a threshold state it is usually the count each parent is left with rather than the count either one is given.

Is there an income cap for child support in Alaska?

Not a cap, but there is a line and it matters. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(c)(2) says paragraph (a) "does not apply to the extent that the parent has an adjusted annual income of over $138,000", and that above it the court "may make an additional award only if it is just and proper", weighing the needs of the children, their standard of living and the paying parent's ability to pay. So the percentage stops there and the discretion runs upward only, which makes the figure at that point a minimum a court adds to rather than a limit on what it can order. Two things about it that catch people out. It is stated ANNUALLY, where almost every other state states its ceiling monthly, and it sits on ONE parent's income rather than on the two combined, so a second earner cannot push a family over it. One caveat on how we apply it: the rule puts the line on adjusted income and we test it against gross, which is larger, so we reach it earlier than the rule does.

How long does child support last in Alaska?

Child support in Alaska typically continues until the child turns 18 or graduates from high school, whichever is later. Support may continue longer if the child has a disability or if the parents agree to extend support for college expenses.

This estimate is for planning purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Consult a licensed family law attorney in your state for guidance specific to your situation.

How we calculate this estimate

We apply the guideline model your state actually uses, and the models differ more than most summaries suggest. Most states follow the Income Shares Model: both parents' monthly incomes are combined, a basic support obligation is drawn from that combined figure and the number of children, and each parent covers the share that matches their portion of the combined income. Which income figure gets combined is the state's own to define and it is not the same one everywhere, so this page names it for your state where the guideline has been read and does not guess at it where it has not. Percentage of Income states apply a set rate to the paying parent's income alone, and Nevada's tiered version steps that rate down across income brackets. The Melson Formula reserves a self-support amount for each parent before dividing what is left. Some states do neither: North Dakota reads a dollar figure off a table keyed to one parent's net income, and California publishes a single algebraic formula with no schedule behind it. Which one your state is on is named on its own page rather than inferred from a list here. Credits for health insurance and childcare are applied where the state's own guideline builds them into the order, along with any income cap the state sets, and the list of what moves the number on each state's page names the levers that actually move that state's figure. Parenting time is computed in the states whose own guideline we have read and implemented, and in no others.

What the estimate assumes for Alaska

  • Income figures are gross monthly, before taxes, counting the sources your state includes.
  • Parenting time moves the figure only where we have read and implemented the state's own rule. The parenting-time section further down this page says which case this state is in, and where no adjustment applies the estimate is the amount before one. We previously reduced support past 146 overnights on a coefficient of our own. 146 turned out to be a single state's statutory threshold applied to all fifty, the size of the reduction had no legal source anywhere, and the mechanisms states actually use are not variations on one rule. Among the ones we have now read: a worksheet that switches at a threshold both parents must clear, an offset applied continuously with no trigger, a threshold that does nothing below it and slides above it, a term written into the guideline formula itself so there is no unadjusted amount at all, no parenting-time term anywhere, and a formula prescribed by statute whose text we do not have. That list is what we have read rather than what exists, and it has grown with every state checked. We removed ours rather than defaulting it, and we publish each state's adjustment as that state's own rule is verified.
  • North Carolina is one of the verified threshold cases, at 123 overnights under the guidelines adopted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-13.4(c1). The threshold has to be cleared by both parents, which is why a parent well past an even split can fall outside shared care entirely.
  • Texas has no parenting-time adjustment at all, because its guideline has none. Tex. Fam. Code 154.125 runs on the obligor's net resources and the number of children, and the state's own calculator has no field for overnights. Possession time enters only as a discretionary deviation factor, Tex. Fam. Code 154.123(b)(4).
  • Georgia has a mandatory parenting-time adjustment whose formula we do not have. O.C.G.A. 19-6-15(g), effective January 1 2026, requires the court to adjust the noncustodial parent's basic obligation wherever there is a court-ordered parenting time schedule, with the result entered on Child Support Schedule C. Applying arithmetic of our own in place of a prescribed formula would be worse than applying none, so the Georgia estimate is the presumptive amount before that adjustment.
  • Where a state's own schedule has been transcribed, the basic obligation is read straight off it. Where it has not, the figure comes from a national approximation of the tables courts read from, and the source panel on that state's page says which of the two you are looking at. That approximation has been measured against the seven transcribed schedules keyed to the same thing it is, at 546 income and family-size combinations. It missed them by 32 to 86 percent on average, and it missed them in both directions at once: at every income from $1,500 to $6,000 of combined monthly income it came in under at least one of those schedules and over another, then above all seven from $8,000 up, reaching 69 to 240 percent above those states' own tables at $30,000. So a modeled figure at a high combined income is the least reliable number this calculator returns, and near $6,000 is where the approximation lands closest.
  • Where a state sets an income ceiling, we clamp income at it. That is a fair model of a real cap and a poor one of everything else, so two states are handled differently. New York's $193,000 of combined parental income is the point above which a court may consider the additional income, not a limit on what it can order, and our figure there is the amount the guideline produces at the threshold. New Jersey's Appendix IX-F schedule ends at $3,600 of combined weekly net income, and courts are instructed in capital letters not to extrapolate past it, so we read the obligation at the schedule's last row and treat the result as the minimum basic support award rather than as a guideline amount. Appendix IX-A requires a New Jersey court to add to that minimum from the income above the ceiling. Modeling what a court adds is not something we can do honestly, because it turns on statutory factors rather than on arithmetic. Above the New Jersey line our figure is therefore a floor, and above the New York line it is not one: the addition New Jersey requires is what makes its schedule figure a minimum, and no New York instrument says an award may not come in below the amount at the threshold. Both figures read as the low end of a realistic range and only one of them is a floor a reader can count on.
  • The same schedule can also stop short at the bottom. New Jersey publishes no award figure below $180 of combined weekly net income, where the court sets the amount from the paying parent's income and living expenses within a published range. Our estimate at that income is a modeled figure with nothing from the state to check it against, and it says so.
  • The result is a guideline number. Judges can deviate from it when the facts justify a different amount.

Where the estimate stops

Your state's official worksheet is the controlling document, and a court order can land somewhere other than any guideline estimate. Use this to prepare, then confirm the figure with a licensed family law attorney or your state's child support agency.

Read the full methodology for how every calculator on the site is built.

Sources

Alaska courts and statutes

Where to read more

Background reading, not where the figures above came from. No number on this page is taken from any of these.

About this page

Barron Hansen

Written by Barron Hansen

I am an app developer who is dedicated to building the highest-value, most accurate web apps possible, that people want to use every day.