South Dakota Child Support Calculator

Calculate child support in South Dakota from the state's own published guideline. The estimate adjusts for health insurance.

Last updated: South Dakota filing fee checked ; other cost figures are our own estimates

By our own estimates, South Dakota divorces cost about 57% less than our national working figure of $12,900.

Child Support in South Dakota

Formula
Income Shares Model
Where the schedule stops
$30,000/mo net
Equal parenting presumption, in our record
No
Property system, in our record
Equitable distribution

Child Support Calculator in South Dakota: What You Should Know

South Dakota uses the Income Shares Model under SDCL chapter 25-7, reading a statutory schedule at the parents' combined monthly NET income and giving each parent a share of the result in proportion to their net incomes. What makes the state unusual is that it publishes the conversion: § 25-7-6.7 fixes the tax deduction at the rate for a single taxpayer on a monthly payroll period rather than the parent's own rate, so the net figure is the state's arithmetic rather than a guess at your tax position. Health insurance is not added to the obligation but apportioned separately under § 25-7-6.16, with the paying parent credited for the other parent's share, and childcare is a separate order a court may make under § 25-7-6.18. The schedule stops at $30,000 of combined monthly net income, and above it § 25-7-6.9 leaves the amount to a court on the actual needs and standard of living of the child, with no formula attached.

Key point: South Dakota reads its schedule at combined monthly net income and publishes the gross-to-net conversion, and its schedule ends at $30,000 a month with nothing continuing it above.

1
2

Tell us the basics

Locked to South Dakota 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 South Dakota calculates child support

South Dakota sets child support with the Income Shares Model, and we have read the guideline that says so, which means both parents' incomes are combined, and each parent covers the share of the total obligation that matches their share of that combined income. Here is what that looks like in practice.

Calculated from the state's published guideline

South Dakota is calculated from the state's own support obligation schedule at SDCL § 25-7-6.2, all 582 bands of it, and from the state's own worksheet rather than from a national model. The schedule was extracted four independent ways across two documents - the codified section and the enrolled act that enacted it, each read once from its cell structure and once by stripping every tag out and recovering the grid from the count and order of the numbers alone - and all four agree on every one of its 3,492 figures. Eleven rows were read out of the served document by eye in a separate pass and are asserted on every build.

The thing most worth knowing about this figure is that the conversion behind it is South Dakota's rather than ours, which is not true of any other state on this site whose schedule runs on net income. § 25-7-6.2 reads the table at the parents' COMBINED MONTHLY NET incomes, § 25-7-6.3 defines that as gross less the deductions in § 25-7-6.7, and § 25-7-6.7(1) then does something unusual: it fixes the tax deduction at a MODEL rate rather than at the parent's own, allowing "income taxes payable based on the applicable tax rate for a single taxpayer and a monthly payroll period rather than the actual tax rate". The filing status and the payroll period are the statute's, so there is nothing about your tax position for us to guess at, and the figures used are South Dakota's own: the Department of Social Services publishes the tax table on the attached page of its child support worksheet, which is linked below. Every one of its 1,469 bands was checked against the federal withholding schedule it tabulates, and they agree without exception.

What the page still owes you is the narrower gap that leaves. § 25-7-6.7 allows two further deductions this form has no field for: contributions to a qualified retirement plan up to ten percent of gross income, and unreimbursed business expenses an employee carries for their employer. Both come off a parent's income, so leaving them out makes the net figures here higher than a South Dakota court would reach, which reads the schedule at a higher row and makes the obligation being shared too high. Your SHARE of that obligation is the part with no direction to it, because a share moves with both parents' deductions and whose are larger is not something this form establishes. The same section allows the self-employed rate where it applies, and neither the statute nor either of South Dakota's own instruments prints one, so the employee rate has been used for both parents.

The self-support reserve is a SWITCH here rather than a discount, and it is the part of South Dakota's guideline most likely to be described wrongly elsewhere. § 25-7-6.2 sets aside $871 a month "that accounts for the subsistence needs of the obligated parent with a limited ability to pay" and prints the figures that already contain it in an EMBOLDENED area of the schedule. It then makes the printing operative: where the obligation computed on the paying parent's monthly net income ALONE falls inside that area, it "must be compared to the noncustodial parent's proportionate share using both parents' monthly net incomes", and "the lesser amount establishes the noncustodial parent's child support order". Two calculations at two different points of the same table, and the smaller answer wins. The emboldening is a printing property rather than a character, so it survives no plain-text extraction at all; it was recovered from the markup of both documents, 85 cells, identical in each, one marked with a stylesheet rule and one with a bold element.

Health insurance is handled the way § 25-7-6.16 handles it, which is not the income shares convention. The premium is not added to the basic obligation before it is split. The cost attributable to the child "must be apportioned between the parents on the basis of income", and a parent who pays the whole of it "shall either be reimbursed by the other parent for that parent's portion of the payment or shall receive a credit against the support obligation" - so the credit comes off the figure the reserve comparison has already produced, which is the order South Dakota's own worksheet performs it in. Two South Dakota costs sit outside the calculation entirely and are not in the figure on this page: uninsured health care above $250 in a calendar year, which § 25-7-6.16 apportions with the custodial parent carrying the first $250, and work-related childcare, which § 25-7-6.18 leaves to an order the court "may" make.

At the top, South Dakota's schedule closes at $30,000 of combined monthly net income and nothing continues it. § 25-7-6.9 is one sentence in full: "For a combined net income above the schedule in § 25-7-6.2, the child support obligation shall be established at an appropriate level, taking into account the actual needs and standard of living of the child." No formula, no percentage, and no clause making the top row a minimum, which is where South Dakota differs from most states whose table ends. So above that line this calculator returns no figure rather than the last row, and South Dakota's own calculator does the same thing: it says it covers combined monthly net income to $30,000, and above that it returns nothing.

Source: SDCL § 25-7-6.2

The Income Shares Model starts from an estimate of what the children would have received had the household stayed intact, then splits that figure between the parents. The calculation runs in three steps. Both parents' monthly incomes are added together. A basic support obligation for that combined figure and that number of children is set by the state's own guideline. Each parent is then responsible for the percentage of the obligation that matches their percentage of the combined income.

Because the obligation is divided by income share rather than assigned to one side, the receiving parent's earnings matter as much as the paying parent's. A parent bringing in 70 percent of the combined income carries roughly 70 percent of the total obligation. The parent the children live with most is treated as already spending their share through daily care, so only the other parent's share is ordered as a payment. That is why closing the income gap between two parents lowers the payment even when neither parent's own income falls.

Four things are then layered on top of the base figure: health insurance premiums covering the children, work-related childcare, support already being paid under an earlier order for other children, and, in most states, the number of overnights each parent has.

The figure South Dakota's own guideline works from is combined monthly net incomes, under SDCL § 25-7-6.2, with monthly net income defined at § 25-7-6.3 and its allowable deductions listed at § 25-7-6.7.

What moves the number in South Dakota

  • Both parents' monthly incomes, and the gap between them
  • Number of children covered by the order
  • Court-ordered parenting time, through adjustments the state allows a judge to grant rather than requires
  • Health insurance premiums covering the children
  • Work-related childcare for the children, under a rule this estimate does not apply
  • Support already ordered for children from another relationship

Income limits and judicial discretion

South Dakota's schedule ends and nothing continues it, which is the strongest form of a stopping point on this site and rarer than it sounds. The support obligation schedule at SDCL § 25-7-6.2 runs to $30,000 of combined monthly NET income, and § 25-7-6.9 then reads in full: "For a combined net income above the schedule in § 25-7-6.2, the child support obligation shall be established at an appropriate level, taking into account the actual needs and standard of living of the child." There is no formula in that sentence, no percentage of the excess, and no clause making the top row a minimum a court adds to. So above the line this page shows no figure at all rather than the last row, and South Dakota's own calculator does the same: it says it covers combined monthly net income to $30,000, and past that it returns nothing. Check the unit before comparing it with another state, because this is stated at NET income and most published ceilings are gross - the gross pay that reaches it is a good deal higher. South Dakota 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.

South Dakota child support examples

These three examples run through the same South Dakota 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 the overnight count does not change any of them: South Dakota's two parenting-time adjustments are both a court's to grant and neither exists without a custody order, which is set out below.

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: $717 per month ($8,604 a year).

Step by step breakdown for example 1
StepAmount
Your monthly gross income$5,000
Federal income tax, single taxpayer, monthly payroll period (§ 25-7-6.7(1))-$420
Social security and Medicare (§ 25-7-6.7(2))-$383
Your monthly net income$4,197
Other parent's monthly net income, after the same deductions$2,590
Combined monthly net income$6,787
Schedule obligation for 1 child at $6,787 combined monthly net income (§ 25-7-6.2)$1,157
Your share of the combined net income (§ 25-7-6.2)$717
  • South Dakota's schedule is read at combined monthly NET income and this form collects gross, and unlike most states with a net-keyed schedule South Dakota publishes the conversion rather than leaving it to a court. § 25-7-6.3 defines the net figure as gross less the deductions in § 25-7-6.7, and § 25-7-6.7(1) fixes the tax deduction at a MODEL rate rather than your own: "income taxes payable based on the applicable tax rate for a single taxpayer and a monthly payroll period rather than the actual tax rate". So the filing status and the payroll period are the statute's rather than facts we had to guess, and the figures used are the state's own published table - $420 of federal income tax on your gross pay and $180 on the other parent's, plus social security and Medicare at the employee rate. What is left out is what the form does not ask for. § 25-7-6.7 also allows retirement contributions up to ten percent of gross, and unreimbursed business expenses an employee carries for their employer; both come OFF a parent's income, so leaving them out makes the net figures here HIGHER than a South Dakota court would reach, which reads the schedule at a higher row and makes the obligation being shared too high. That direction holds at every income and every family size. Your SHARE of that obligation is the part we cannot put a direction on, because it moves with both parents' deductions and whose are larger is not something this form establishes. § 25-7-6.7(2) also allows the self-employed rate where it applies, and neither the statute nor either of South Dakota's own instruments prints one, so the employee rate is what has been used for both of you.
  • South Dakota's self-support reserve did not come into play here. § 25-7-6.2 builds a reserve of $871 a month into the emboldened figures at the low-income end of its schedule, and where the obligation worked out on the paying parent's income ALONE lands inside that area the state compares it with the proportionate share and takes the lesser. Your monthly net income of $4,197 is above the emboldened area for 1 child, so the comparison does not arise and your proportionate share is the order.
  • Moving the overnight slider will not move this figure, and in South Dakota that is a reading of the state's own rules rather than a gap in ours. There are TWO parenting-time mechanisms in chapter 25-7 and both of them wait on a court. § 25-7-6.27 lets a court grant a shared parenting cross credit - the combined obligation multiplied by 1.5, prorated by income share and then by nights, and offset between the parents - but only where "a custody order by the court, contains a detailed shared parenting plan which provides that the child will reside no less than one hundred eighty nights per calendar year in each parent's home", and even then the court "may, if deemed appropriate under the circumstances, grant" it. § 25-7-6.14 lets a court abate "not less than thirty-eight percent nor more than sixty-six percent" of the basic obligation for nights the child spends with the paying parent, from six or more nights a month, and that too is a "may": it runs "pursuant to a custody order", the paying parent has to demonstrate the increased non-duplicated costs they carry, the abatement is repayable if the parenting time is not actually exercised, and it may not exceed the § 25-7-6.27 cross credit. You entered 80 overnights for yourself, which leaves 285 for the other parent. Neither mechanism can be run from that number alone, because neither exists until there is a custody order and a decision by the court, and this page establishes neither. So the figure above is South Dakota's basic obligation, and the overnight count is worth negotiating on its own terms: at 180 nights each it opens the cross credit, and at six nights a month it opens the abatement.
  • Two South Dakota costs this page does not price, both from § 25-7-6.16 and § 25-7-6.18, because the state does not put either inside the basic obligation. Uninsured health care - medical, optometric, dental or orthodontic, or counseling - is apportioned between the parents "in proportion to the support obligation of each parent" only above $250 in a calendar year, and the parent with primary physical custody carries that first $250. Work-related childcare is a separate order the court "may" make under § 25-7-6.18, which also lets the court weigh the federal child care tax credit at twenty-five percent of the eligible expense where it is available to the custodial parent. Neither is in the figure above, and the worksheet South Dakota publishes says the same thing in its own words: deviations "for childcare, visitation, or other factors" are "not included in the calculations of the basic child support obligation on this worksheet".
  • 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, South Dakota 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: $1,063 per month ($12,756 a year).

Step by step breakdown for example 2
StepAmount
Your monthly gross income$5,000
Federal income tax, single taxpayer, monthly payroll period (§ 25-7-6.7(1))-$420
Social security and Medicare (§ 25-7-6.7(2))-$383
Your monthly net income$4,197
Other parent's monthly net income, after the same deductions$2,590
Combined monthly net income$6,787
Schedule obligation for 2 children at $6,787 combined monthly net income (§ 25-7-6.2)$1,715
Your share of the combined net income (§ 25-7-6.2)$1,063
  • South Dakota's schedule is read at combined monthly NET income and this form collects gross, and unlike most states with a net-keyed schedule South Dakota publishes the conversion rather than leaving it to a court. § 25-7-6.3 defines the net figure as gross less the deductions in § 25-7-6.7, and § 25-7-6.7(1) fixes the tax deduction at a MODEL rate rather than your own: "income taxes payable based on the applicable tax rate for a single taxpayer and a monthly payroll period rather than the actual tax rate". So the filing status and the payroll period are the statute's rather than facts we had to guess, and the figures used are the state's own published table - $420 of federal income tax on your gross pay and $180 on the other parent's, plus social security and Medicare at the employee rate. What is left out is what the form does not ask for. § 25-7-6.7 also allows retirement contributions up to ten percent of gross, and unreimbursed business expenses an employee carries for their employer; both come OFF a parent's income, so leaving them out makes the net figures here HIGHER than a South Dakota court would reach, which reads the schedule at a higher row and makes the obligation being shared too high. That direction holds at every income and every family size. Your SHARE of that obligation is the part we cannot put a direction on, because it moves with both parents' deductions and whose are larger is not something this form establishes. § 25-7-6.7(2) also allows the self-employed rate where it applies, and neither the statute nor either of South Dakota's own instruments prints one, so the employee rate is what has been used for both of you.
  • South Dakota's self-support reserve did not come into play here. § 25-7-6.2 builds a reserve of $871 a month into the emboldened figures at the low-income end of its schedule, and where the obligation worked out on the paying parent's income ALONE lands inside that area the state compares it with the proportionate share and takes the lesser. Your monthly net income of $4,197 is above the emboldened area for 2 children, so the comparison does not arise and your proportionate share is the order.
  • Moving the overnight slider will not move this figure, and in South Dakota that is a reading of the state's own rules rather than a gap in ours. There are TWO parenting-time mechanisms in chapter 25-7 and both of them wait on a court. § 25-7-6.27 lets a court grant a shared parenting cross credit - the combined obligation multiplied by 1.5, prorated by income share and then by nights, and offset between the parents - but only where "a custody order by the court, contains a detailed shared parenting plan which provides that the child will reside no less than one hundred eighty nights per calendar year in each parent's home", and even then the court "may, if deemed appropriate under the circumstances, grant" it. § 25-7-6.14 lets a court abate "not less than thirty-eight percent nor more than sixty-six percent" of the basic obligation for nights the child spends with the paying parent, from six or more nights a month, and that too is a "may": it runs "pursuant to a custody order", the paying parent has to demonstrate the increased non-duplicated costs they carry, the abatement is repayable if the parenting time is not actually exercised, and it may not exceed the § 25-7-6.27 cross credit. You entered 80 overnights for yourself, which leaves 285 for the other parent. Neither mechanism can be run from that number alone, because neither exists until there is a custody order and a decision by the court, and this page establishes neither. So the figure above is South Dakota's basic obligation, and the overnight count is worth negotiating on its own terms: at 180 nights each it opens the cross credit, and at six nights a month it opens the abatement.
  • Two South Dakota costs this page does not price, both from § 25-7-6.16 and § 25-7-6.18, because the state does not put either inside the basic obligation. Uninsured health care - medical, optometric, dental or orthodontic, or counseling - is apportioned between the parents "in proportion to the support obligation of each parent" only above $250 in a calendar year, and the parent with primary physical custody carries that first $250. Work-related childcare is a separate order the court "may" make under § 25-7-6.18, which also lets the court weigh the federal child care tax credit at twenty-five percent of the eligible expense where it is available to the custodial parent. Neither is in the figure above, and the worksheet South Dakota publishes says the same thing in its own words: deviations "for childcare, visitation, or other factors" are "not included in the calculations of the basic child support obligation on this worksheet".
  • 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, South Dakota 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 the work-related childcare. What each of those does to the figure is a per-state answer, and it is stated under the three examples.

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

Guideline result: $1,846 per month ($22,152 a year).

Step by step breakdown for example 3
StepAmount
Your monthly gross income$12,000
Federal income tax, single taxpayer, monthly payroll period (§ 25-7-6.7(1))-$1,944
Social security and Medicare (§ 25-7-6.7(2))-$918
Your monthly net income$9,138
Other parent's monthly net income, after the same deductions$2,590
Combined monthly net income$11,728
Schedule obligation for 2 children at $11,728 combined monthly net income (§ 25-7-6.2)$2,446
Your share of the combined net income (§ 25-7-6.2)$1,908
Credit: the other parent's 22% share of the child's insurance cost (§ 25-7-6.16)-$62
  • South Dakota's schedule is read at combined monthly NET income and this form collects gross, and unlike most states with a net-keyed schedule South Dakota publishes the conversion rather than leaving it to a court. § 25-7-6.3 defines the net figure as gross less the deductions in § 25-7-6.7, and § 25-7-6.7(1) fixes the tax deduction at a MODEL rate rather than your own: "income taxes payable based on the applicable tax rate for a single taxpayer and a monthly payroll period rather than the actual tax rate". So the filing status and the payroll period are the statute's rather than facts we had to guess, and the figures used are the state's own published table - $1,944 of federal income tax on your gross pay and $180 on the other parent's, plus social security and Medicare at the employee rate. What is left out is what the form does not ask for. § 25-7-6.7 also allows retirement contributions up to ten percent of gross, and unreimbursed business expenses an employee carries for their employer; both come OFF a parent's income, so leaving them out makes the net figures here HIGHER than a South Dakota court would reach, which reads the schedule at a higher row and makes the obligation being shared too high. That direction holds at every income and every family size. Your SHARE of that obligation is the part we cannot put a direction on, because it moves with both parents' deductions and whose are larger is not something this form establishes. § 25-7-6.7(2) also allows the self-employed rate where it applies, and neither the statute nor either of South Dakota's own instruments prints one, so the employee rate is what has been used for both of you.
  • South Dakota's self-support reserve did not come into play here. § 25-7-6.2 builds a reserve of $871 a month into the emboldened figures at the low-income end of its schedule, and where the obligation worked out on the paying parent's income ALONE lands inside that area the state compares it with the proportionate share and takes the lesser. Your monthly net income of $9,138 is above the emboldened area for 2 children, so the comparison does not arise and your proportionate share is the order.
  • Moving the overnight slider will not move this figure, and in South Dakota that is a reading of the state's own rules rather than a gap in ours. There are TWO parenting-time mechanisms in chapter 25-7 and both of them wait on a court. § 25-7-6.27 lets a court grant a shared parenting cross credit - the combined obligation multiplied by 1.5, prorated by income share and then by nights, and offset between the parents - but only where "a custody order by the court, contains a detailed shared parenting plan which provides that the child will reside no less than one hundred eighty nights per calendar year in each parent's home", and even then the court "may, if deemed appropriate under the circumstances, grant" it. § 25-7-6.14 lets a court abate "not less than thirty-eight percent nor more than sixty-six percent" of the basic obligation for nights the child spends with the paying parent, from six or more nights a month, and that too is a "may": it runs "pursuant to a custody order", the paying parent has to demonstrate the increased non-duplicated costs they carry, the abatement is repayable if the parenting time is not actually exercised, and it may not exceed the § 25-7-6.27 cross credit. You entered 80 overnights for yourself, which leaves 285 for the other parent. Neither mechanism can be run from that number alone, because neither exists until there is a custody order and a decision by the court, and this page establishes neither. So the figure above is South Dakota's basic obligation, and the overnight count is worth negotiating on its own terms: at 180 nights each it opens the cross credit, and at six nights a month it opens the abatement.
  • The health insurance you entered is handled the way § 25-7-6.16 handles it, which is not the way most income shares states do. The premium is NOT added to the basic obligation before it is split. The section says the cost attributable to the child "must be apportioned between the parents on the basis of income", and that if one parent pays the whole thing that parent "shall either be reimbursed by the other parent for that parent's portion of the payment or shall receive a credit against the support obligation". So the other parent's 22 percent share of your $280 premium, $62, comes off the figure above rather than being pooled into it first. One figure worth having beside it: § 25-7-6.16 treats insurance as reasonable in cost where the amount attributable to the child is no more than eight percent of the paying parent's net income, which on your entries is $731 a month. That test decides whether a South Dakota court must order insurance at all; it is not a limit on the credit and nothing here has been clamped to it. What the section also asks for, and this form does not collect, is the cost attributable to THE CHILD rather than the whole premium: § 25-7-6.16 defines that as the cost of adding the child to existing coverage, the cost of a private policy for the child, or, under family coverage, the family premium divided by the number of people on it.
  • Two South Dakota costs this page does not price, both from § 25-7-6.16 and § 25-7-6.18, because the state does not put either inside the basic obligation. Uninsured health care - medical, optometric, dental or orthodontic, or counseling - is apportioned between the parents "in proportion to the support obligation of each parent" only above $250 in a calendar year, and the parent with primary physical custody carries that first $250. Work-related childcare is a separate order the court "may" make under § 25-7-6.18, which also lets the court weigh the federal child care tax credit at twenty-five percent of the eligible expense where it is available to the custodial parent. Neither is in the figure above, and the worksheet South Dakota publishes says the same thing in its own words: deviations "for childcare, visitation, or other factors" are "not included in the calculations of the basic child support obligation on this worksheet".
  • The childcare cost you entered has not changed the figure above, and that is South Dakota's answer rather than a gap in ours. § 25-7-6.18 says the court "may enter an order allocating the reasonable child care expenses for the child", so it is an order a judge may make on top of the basic obligation rather than a term inside it, and there is no arithmetic to run without one. Raise it specifically: the same section lets the court take account of the federal child care tax credit at twenty-five percent of the eligible expense where the custodial parent can claim it, so what a South Dakota court allocates may be less than what you pay.
  • 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, South Dakota included, so nothing on this page is adjusted for one.

Comparing the first two examples shows what a second child is worth in South Dakota: the order moves from $717 to $1,063 a month on identical incomes. The third example raises the paying parent's earnings and adds health insurance and childcare. Only the insurance moves the figure: South Dakota credits it against the obligation rather than adding it on top, and the childcare does not enter the calculation at all.

How parenting time changes support in South Dakota

South Dakota does adjust support for parenting time, and it has two separate routes for doing it. Both of them have been read out of the state's own chapter, and neither is a formula that runs off an overnight count on its own.

SDCL § 25-7-6.27 lets a court grant a shared parenting cross credit, which multiplies the combined obligation by 1.5, prorates it by each parent's share of the combined net incomes and then by nights, and offsets the two figures so the larger one pays the difference. What it needs first is a custody order containing "a detailed shared parenting plan which provides that the child will reside no less than one hundred eighty nights per calendar year in each parent's home", and even then the court "may, if deemed appropriate under the circumstances, grant" it.

SDCL § 25-7-6.14 lets a court grant an abatement of "not less than thirty-eight percent nor more than sixty-six percent" of the basic obligation, for the nights the child spends with the paying parent. What it needs first is the child residing with the paying parent "six or more nights in a month pursuant to a custody order", a court deciding it is appropriate, and the paying parent demonstrating the increased non-duplicated costs they carry. It is repayable if the parenting time is not exercised, and it may not exceed the § 25-7-6.27 cross credit.

So the overnight count does not move the estimate on this page, and the reason is worth separating from the usual one. This is not a rule we have failed to obtain: it is a rule that does not operate until a court has made an order and then chosen to apply it, and a form that collects a number of nights establishes neither. Running either mechanism from your entries would be answering a question about a judge's discretion with arithmetic, and it would attach South Dakota's name to the answer.

What follows for you is practical rather than a caveat. The thresholds above are worth negotiating toward deliberately, because they are what make an adjustment available at all: a parenting plan that reaches 180 nights each opens the cross credit, and six nights a month opens the abatement. Take both to a South Dakota family law attorney with the order you actually have or expect, and note that the abatement carries a condition most parents do not expect - if the extended parenting time is not exercised in a given year, the abated support has to be paid back.

Where South Dakota starts on parenting time

South Dakota does not presume equal parenting time. That is our own record rather than South Dakota's own custody law. Courts set the schedule on the best interests of the children, and in South Dakota the schedule is what opens the two adjustments set out above rather than feeding a formula automatically. Both of them run off a custody order and both are a judge's to grant, so the overnight count is worth negotiating in two specific places rather than in general: the thresholds those provisions name are the ones that make an adjustment available at all.

Getting a child support order in South Dakota

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, in our record
No minimum
Waiting period, in our record
2 months
Uncontested, our estimate
2 months
Contested, our estimate
9 months

Support before the case is finished

Our record has no minimum residency in South Dakota before filing, and a waiting period of 2 months that 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 South Dakota's clock begins. On our own estimates, a contested case in South Dakota runs 9 months, against 2 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

On our own figures, family law attorneys in South Dakota run $175 to $300 an hour, and mediation costs roughly $200 a 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 South Dakota; 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 a South Dakota 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 South Dakota'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.

South Dakota guideline authority and official worksheet

South Dakota carries its child support guideline across more than one instrument, and these are the ones we read from an official copy:

  • SDCL § 25-7-6.2 - read from the official copy at sdlegislature.gov, on September 6, 2026.
  • SDCL § 25-7-6.7 - read from the official copy at sdlegislature.gov, on September 6, 2026.

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.

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. South Dakota publishes the form below, and it is the one to fill in once your figures are settled. The estimate on this page models the same guideline so you can plan around it first.

Child Support in South Dakota - Frequently Asked Questions

How is child support calculated in South Dakota?

South Dakota uses the Income Shares Model to calculate child support, and we have read the guideline that says so. Both parents' incomes are combined, and each parent's share of the total obligation is proportional to their share of the combined income. The figure South Dakota's own guideline works from is combined monthly net incomes, under SDCL § 25-7-6.2, with monthly net income defined at § 25-7-6.3 and its allowable deductions listed at § 25-7-6.7.

Does South Dakota use the income shares model?

Yes. South Dakota is an income shares state, which is the model used by the large majority of states. Both parents' incomes are combined, a total support obligation is set from that combined figure and the number of children, and each parent is responsible for the share that matches their portion of the combined income. The parent the children live with most is treated as spending their share directly, so only the other parent's share becomes a payment.

How do overnights affect child support in South Dakota?

They can change a South Dakota order and they do not change this estimate, and the reason is a court's rather than ours. South Dakota has two separate routes for it and both have been read out of the state's own chapter: SDCL § 25-7-6.27 lets a court grant a shared parenting cross credit, which multiplies the combined obligation by 1.5, prorates it by each parent's share of the combined net incomes and then by nights, and offsets the two figures so the larger one pays the difference, and needs a custody order containing "a detailed shared parenting plan which provides that the child will reside no less than one hundred eighty nights per calendar year in each parent's home", and even then the court "may, if deemed appropriate under the circumstances, grant" it; SDCL § 25-7-6.14 lets a court grant an abatement of "not less than thirty-eight percent nor more than sixty-six percent" of the basic obligation, for the nights the child spends with the paying parent, and needs the child residing with the paying parent "six or more nights in a month pursuant to a custody order", a court deciding it is appropriate, and the paying parent demonstrating the increased non-duplicated costs they carry. It is repayable if the parenting time is not exercised, and it may not exceed the § 25-7-6.27 cross credit. Each one is a "may" and each one runs off a custody order, so neither can be computed from a number of nights on its own. What that means practically is that the count is worth negotiating toward the thresholds those provisions name, because reaching one is what makes an adjustment available at all, and then getting the figure from a South Dakota family law attorney or the state child support agency rather than from this page.

How much is child support for 2 children in South Dakota?

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 $1,063 a month ($12,756 a year) under South Dakota's guideline. Change the incomes and the number moves. Changing the overnights does not, because South Dakota's two parenting-time adjustments are each a court's to grant on a custody order rather than a term inside the guideline calculation. Run your own figures in the calculator on this page.

Can child support be modified in South Dakota?

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. How large a change has to be is set by each state, and this page does not put a number on it for South Dakota.

Does custody arrangement affect child support in South Dakota?

Yes for which parent pays, and only through a court for the amount. South Dakota puts both of its parenting-time adjustments outside the guideline calculation and inside a judge's discretion: SDCL § 25-7-6.27 and SDCL § 25-7-6.14 each say the court "may" grant one, and each needs a custody order before the question arises at all. So the arrangement you have in mind does not move the figure on this page, and what it does instead is decide whether either adjustment is available to argue for. The section above sets out what each one needs.

Is there an income cap for child support in South Dakota?

Not a cap, and not a ceiling anything reaches past either. South Dakota's support obligation schedule at SDCL § 25-7-6.2 stops at $30,000 of combined monthly NET income, and what governs above it is § 25-7-6.9, one sentence long: "For a combined net income above the schedule in § 25-7-6.2, the child support obligation shall be established at an appropriate level, taking into account the actual needs and standard of living of the child." That is a court's assessment of evidence rather than arithmetic, so there is no guideline amount for a family above the line, and rather than show you the top row as though it were one we show no figure and say so. Two things follow. The number is stated at NET income, so with federal income tax and the employee social security and Medicare rates coming off first, the combined GROSS pay that reaches it is considerably more than $30,000 a month. And the question above the line is what the children actually need and what standard of living they are used to, which means the evidence you bring matters more than any calculation, and a South Dakota family law attorney is the right place to take it.

How long does child support last in South Dakota?

Child support in South Dakota 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 South Dakota

  • 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 that we have found and not transcribed. 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, and its formula is printed in SB 454 (2024), which was read here on October 5, 2026, and it is not transcribed or applied here. 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, and this calculator publishes no Georgia figure at all.
  • Where this calculator computes from a state's own guideline, the basic obligation comes from that state's own schedule or equations. Everywhere else it gives no figure, and the source panel on that state's page says why. The national approximation it used to fall back on was measured against the eight transcribed schedules keyed to the same thing it is, at 624 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 eight from $8,000 up, reaching 69 to 240 percent above those states' own tables at $30,000. So it was least reliable at a high combined income, where the dollars are largest, and landed closest near $6,000; that measurement is why no state's page shows it now.
  • 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. 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. Modeling what a court adds above it is not something we can do honestly, because it turns on statutory factors rather than on arithmetic, so read the New York figure above that line as the low end of a realistic range, and not as a floor: no New York instrument says an award may not come in below the amount at the threshold.
  • New Jersey's Appendix IX-F schedule ends at $3,600 of combined weekly net income, with courts instructed in capital letters not to extrapolate past it, and Appendix IX-A requires a court to add to the schedule figure from the income above that point. Below $180 of combined weekly net income it publishes no award figure at all. This calculator publishes no New Jersey figure, at any income.
  • 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

South Dakota courts and statutes

Citations our record carries for South Dakota. Being listed here does not mean a figure on this page was read from it.

Where to read more

Background reading. 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.