How to Fill Out New York Form UD-11 (w/Examples) + FAQs

New York Form UD-11 is the Child Support Worksheet that you must complete in every uncontested divorce involving children under 21, and you fill it out by listing each parent’s gross income, subtracting allowed deductions, applying the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) percentage to the combined parental income, and then dividing that basic obligation in proportion to each parent’s share of the combined income. The worksheet then adds pro rata shares of childcare, health insurance, and unreimbursed medical costs, and it lets the court confirm whether the presumptive amount is correct or whether a deviation is justified under Domestic Relations Law §240(1-b).

Filing a divorce packet without a properly completed UD-11 is the single most common reason matrimonial clerks reject uncontested divorce papers in New York Supreme Court, and a rejection can delay your judgment of divorce by 60 to 120 days. According to the New York State Unified Court System annual report, roughly 60% of uncontested divorce filings in New York involve minor children, which means UD-11 errors affect tens of thousands of families every year.

Here is what you will learn in this guide:

• 📋 How to read every line of the official UD-11 worksheet and what each entry means in plain English
• 💵 How to calculate combined parental income, apply CSSA percentages, and handle the statutory income cap
• 👨‍👩‍👧 How to allocate add-on expenses like childcare, health insurance, and unreimbursed medical costs
• ⚖️ When and how to deviate from the presumptive amount under the ten statutory factors
• 🚫 The seven most common mistakes that get UD-11 packets rejected by matrimonial clerks

What Form UD-11 Is and Why It Exists

Form UD-11 is the Child Support Worksheet issued by the New York State Office of Court Administration for use in every uncontested divorce action where the spouses have one or more children under the age of 21. The form translates the math required by the Child Support Standards Act into a fillable two-page worksheet that any judge, support magistrate, or court attorney-referee can audit at a glance. You must file it together with your other uncontested divorce forms, including the UD-2 verified complaint, the UD-6 affidavit of plaintiff, and the UD-8 maintenance worksheet when maintenance is also at issue.

The form exists because the New York Legislature passed the CSSA in 1989 to create predictable, formula-driven child support orders that protect children from arbitrary judicial discretion. Before the CSSA, child support varied wildly between counties and between judges, and many custodial parents received far less than the actual cost of raising a child. The worksheet now forces both parents to disclose income on the record, and a judge cannot sign a judgment of divorce that contains a child support provision deviating from the formula unless the deviation is explained on the worksheet itself.

The consequence of skipping or fudging UD-11 is severe because DRL §240(1-b)(h) requires the parties to recite, in writing, that they were advised of the presumptive CSSA amount before they agreed to anything different. A judgment that lacks this recital is voidable on appeal, and the Appellate Division has vacated child support provisions for missing the so-called “CSSA recitals” in dozens of reported decisions. Picture Maria Delgado, a Queens mother who signed a settlement giving her $400 per week in support; two years later her ex-husband moved to vacate because the worksheet was never filed, and the court ordered a do-over that cost both sides thousands in legal fees.

A common misconception is that UD-11 is optional when the parents agree on a number. It is not. Even when parents agree, the worksheet must be filed so the court can confirm the agreed amount is at least informed by the statutory presumption.

Who Must File UD-11

Every plaintiff in a New York uncontested divorce who has a child under 21 with the defendant must file UD-11, regardless of whether the parents agree on support, share custody equally, or claim that neither parent owes the other any money. The rule applies in all 62 counties and in both New York Supreme Court and the Integrated Domestic Violence parts. The only narrow exception is when there are no children of the marriage under 21 at the time of filing, in which case UD-11 is replaced by a sworn statement that no child support is owed.

The consequence of filing without UD-11 when children are involved is an automatic clerk rejection at the Matrimonial Centralized Case Processing unit, and the entire packet is mailed back with a deficiency notice. James O’Connor, a Suffolk County father, learned this when his pro se packet was rejected three times in four months because he kept attaching a self-drafted child support paragraph instead of the official worksheet. Each rejection added roughly 30 to 45 days to his timeline.

Unmarried parents do not use UD-11; they use Family Court forms under Family Court Act §413 instead. The math is the same, but the procedural vehicle is different, and using the wrong form will get your case dismissed without prejudice.

The Official UD-11 Worksheet, Line by Line

The current UD-11 worksheet, dated January 2024, contains 21 numbered lines plus signature blocks, and you can pull a clean copy from the Uncontested Divorce Forms Packet. Filling it out correctly requires you to gather the most recent year’s tax returns, the last three pay stubs for each parent, proof of health insurance premiums for the children, and any childcare invoices.

Line 1 — Gross Income From the Most Recent Federal Tax Return

Line 1 asks for each parent’s gross income as it “should have been or should be reported” on the most recent federal tax return. The phrase “should have been” is critical because it lets the court correct underreported income, cash income, or income hidden in a closely held business. You enter the plaintiff’s gross income in the left column and the defendant’s in the right column.

The consequence of using a low number you cannot back up with documents is that the judge can impute income under Matter of Rohme v. Burns and similar cases, and the imputed amount will almost always be higher than the truthful number you tried to avoid disclosing. A real-world example involves David Park, a Manhattan freelance photographer who reported $42,000 on his tax return but was imputed $95,000 by the court after his ex-wife produced bank statements showing far higher cash deposits.

A common misconception is that “gross income” means take-home pay. It does not. Gross income on Line 1 is the IRS Form 1040 figure before federal, state, or city tax withholding.

Lines 2 Through 5 — Investment, Imputed, and Self-Employment Adjustments

Lines 2 through 5 capture income the IRS does not always tax fully, including investment income, depreciation add-backs, employer-paid perks like a company car or housing, and the value of money or services from friends and relatives. Line 4(b) specifically lets the court add back depreciation that artificially lowered self-employment income on Schedule C. Line 5 captures fringe benefits.

The consequence of skipping these lines when they apply is twofold: the support amount will be too low, and the omission can later be characterized as fraud on the court under CPLR §5015(a)(3), which allows a judgment to be reopened years later. Sandra Whitfield, a Westchester mother, successfully reopened a 2019 judgment in 2023 after discovering her ex-husband had failed to disclose $30,000 a year in employer-provided housing.

A common misconception is that only “extra” jobs count here. The form is broader; it captures any economic benefit a parent receives, even non-cash benefits.

Lines 6 Through 9 — Allowed Deductions

Lines 6 through 9 list the deductions the CSSA permits before applying the percentage. Allowed deductions include unreimbursed employee business expenses, alimony or maintenance paid to a non-party spouse, child support paid for non-subject children pursuant to a court order, public assistance, supplemental security income, New York City or Yonkers income tax actually paid, and FICA (Social Security and Medicare) taxes actually paid. You cannot deduct federal income tax, state income tax, voluntary 401(k) contributions, or health insurance premiums on these lines.

The consequence of taking unauthorized deductions is that the court will recalculate without them, and you may be ordered to pay arrears retroactive to the filing date. The Court of Appeals decision in Holterman v. Holterman, 3 N.Y.3d 1 (2004) confirms that the CSSA list of deductions is exclusive and not illustrative.

A common misconception is that any “necessary” expense reduces income. Only the statutory list does, and the list is short.

Line 10 — Adjusted CSSA Income

Line 10 is the math line where you subtract Lines 6 through 9 from the sum of Lines 1 through 5 for each parent separately. The result is each parent’s “CSSA income” or adjusted gross income for child support purposes. This number is the foundation of every subsequent calculation on the worksheet.

The consequence of an arithmetic error on Line 10 cascades through every later line because Line 11 sums the two parents’ Line 10 numbers, and Line 13 multiplies that sum by the CSSA percentage. Robert Chen, a Brooklyn father, lost an additional $4,200 a year because a transposed digit on Line 10 inflated his CSSA income by $14,000.

A common misconception is that you can round to the nearest thousand. Do not. Use exact dollars, because matrimonial clerks compare the worksheet to the tax returns on file.

Lines 11 Through 13 — Combined Income and the CSSA Percentage

Line 11 sums the two adjusted incomes. Line 12 asks you to apply the statutory percentage based on the number of children: 17% for one child, 25% for two, 29% for three, 31% for four, and no less than 35% for five or more. Line 13 multiplies Line 11 by Line 12 to produce the combined basic child support obligation.

The consequence of using the wrong percentage is automatic rejection by the clerk. The percentages are codified at DRL §240(1-b)(b)(3) and have not changed since 1989. Linda Martinez, an Albany mother of two, listed 17% by mistake on Line 12 and waited an extra two months for her judgment after the clerk returned the packet.

A common misconception is that the percentages drop when one parent has 50/50 custody. They do not; the percentages are fixed by statute.

Line 14 — The Statutory Income Cap

Line 14 reflects the statutory cap on combined parental income to which the percentage automatically applies. As of the March 2024 adjustment by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, the cap is $183,000, and it adjusts every two years on March 1 to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers. Above the cap, the court has discretion to apply the percentage to additional income or to use the ten statutory factors in DRL §240(1-b)(f).

The consequence of treating the cap as a hard ceiling is that judges in counties like New York, Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk routinely apply the percentage well above the cap when the children are accustomed to a higher standard of living, citing the Court of Appeals decision in Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649 (1995). Priya Sharma, a White Plains physician, was ordered to pay support on $350,000 of combined income even though the cap was $163,000 at the time, because the court found the children’s lifestyle warranted it.

A common misconception is that high earners always benefit from the cap. They often do not, especially in the downstate counties where judges routinely “pierce” the cap.

Lines 15 Through 18 — Allocation Between the Parents

Lines 15 through 18 split the basic obligation between the parents in proportion to their share of combined income. Line 15 calculates each parent’s percentage share of Line 11. Line 16 multiplies each parent’s percentage by the basic obligation on Line 13. Line 17 identifies the non-custodial parent (NCP), and Line 18 reports the NCP’s pro rata share of the basic obligation, which becomes the presumptive weekly, biweekly, or monthly payment.

The consequence of misidentifying the custodial parent is that support flows in the wrong direction, which can lead to clawbacks, contempt motions, and emergency modification petitions. Thomas Greene, a Rochester father, paid support for nine months before realizing he was the custodial parent under the Bast v. Rossoff, 91 N.Y.2d 723 (1998) “majority of overnights” rule, and recovering the overpayment took two years of litigation.

A common misconception is that 50/50 custody means no support is owed. It does not; under Bast, the higher-earning parent is the NCP for support purposes.

Lines 19 Through 21 — Add-On Expenses

Lines 19 through 21 add the statutory “add-ons” for childcare, health insurance, and unreimbursed medical expenses. Line 19 covers reasonable childcare expenses while the custodial parent works, attends school, or trains for employment. Line 20 covers health insurance premiums for the children. Line 21 covers future unreimbursed medical, dental, vision, and mental health expenses, and it is usually expressed as a percentage rather than a fixed dollar amount.

The consequence of omitting add-ons is that the custodial parent absorbs 100% of these costs, which can amount to $15,000 to $40,000 a year in childcare alone in metropolitan areas. The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection publishes annual childcare cost data showing infant care in Manhattan averaging over $26,000 per year. Add-ons are split pro rata, not 50/50.

A common misconception is that add-ons are optional or negotiable. They are mandatory under DRL §240(1-b)(c)(4) through (c)(7).

Three Common UD-11 Scenarios With Filled-In Examples

The fastest way to understand UD-11 is to walk through three realistic family situations. Each table below shows the parent’s situation and the resulting worksheet output. The examples assume the 2024–2026 cap of $183,000 and use the standard CSSA percentages.

Scenario A — One Child, Modest Combined Income

Family Situation	UD-11 Worksheet Result
Plaintiff mother earns $55,000, defendant father earns $45,000, one child age 6	Combined income = $100,000; CSSA percentage = 17%; basic obligation = $17,000/yr; father’s share = 45%; father pays $7,650/yr or about $147/week, plus 45% of childcare and health insurance

Scenario B — Two Children, Combined Income Above the Cap

Family Situation	UD-11 Worksheet Result
Plaintiff father earns $140,000, defendant mother earns $90,000, two children ages 9 and 12, downstate county	Combined income = $230,000; cap = $183,000; presumptive on cap = $45,750/yr at 25%; court pierces cap under Cassano; father’s share = 61%; father pays roughly $135/week plus 61% of add-ons; judge applies percentage to full $230,000

Scenario C — Three Children, Shared Custody, Self-Employed Parent

Family Situation	UD-11 Worksheet Result
Plaintiff mother is self-employed earning $80,000 after $20,000 depreciation add-back, defendant father earns $70,000, three children, 50/50 overnights	Adjusted incomes = $80,000 and $70,000; combined = $150,000; CSSA % = 29%; basic obligation = $43,500/yr; mother is NCP under Bast because she earns more; mother pays 53% × $43,500 = $23,055/yr or about $443/week

Three Named Examples That Show the Form in Action

Aisha Rahman, a Bronx social worker earning $62,000, filed UD-11 listing her ex-husband’s $48,000 income; the worksheet produced a presumptive payment of $157 per week for one child, plus 56% of after-school program costs.

Michael O’Sullivan, a Staten Island contractor earning $110,000 with $25,000 in legitimately deducted unreimbursed business expenses, used Line 6 correctly to drop his CSSA income to $85,000; this saved him roughly $4,250 a year in support for his two children.

Jasmine Williams, a Buffalo nurse earning $78,000, agreed with her ex-husband to deviate upward from the presumptive $215 per week to $260 per week to fund private school tuition; she recited the deviation and the reasons on Line 18 of UD-11 and survived a later modification challenge because the recitals were complete.

When and How to Deviate From the Presumptive Amount

DRL §240(1-b)(f) lists ten factors a court may consider before deviating from the presumptive child support amount. Factors include the financial resources of the parents and child, the physical and emotional health of the child, the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not ended, tax consequences, non-monetary contributions toward the care of the child, the educational needs of either parent, the disparity in parental incomes, the needs of other children of the non-custodial parent, extraordinary visitation expenses, and any other factor the court finds relevant.

The consequence of deviating without reciting the ten factors and the parties’ acknowledgement of the presumptive amount is that the judgment is voidable, and either party can move to vacate the support provision under CPLR §5015. The Second Department’s decision in Bushlow v. Bushlow is a leading example of a vacated agreement for missing recitals.

A common misconception is that a downward deviation is easier to obtain than an upward one. In practice, judges scrutinize downward deviations carefully because they reduce support to children, and the burden falls on the parent seeking the lower number.

Mistakes to Avoid When Completing UD-11

Avoid these seven mistakes, each of which is a frequent reason matrimonial clerks reject pro se UD-11 packets according to LawHelpNY’s uncontested divorce guidance:

• Reporting net pay instead of gross income on Line 1, which understates income and triggers a clerk rejection or imputation.
• Deducting federal or state income tax on Lines 6 through 9, which is not permitted; only FICA and NYC/Yonkers tax are deductible.
• Using the wrong CSSA percentage on Line 12, which produces an incorrect basic obligation and a packet returned for correction.
• Forgetting to identify the non-custodial parent on Line 17, which makes Line 18 mathematically meaningless.
• Skipping the add-ons on Lines 19 through 21, which forces the custodial parent to absorb childcare and medical costs alone.
• Failing to recite the presumptive amount when deviating, which makes the judgment voidable under DRL §240(1-b)(h).
• Signing the worksheet without notarization when your county requires it, which renders the document unfileable in counties like Kings, Bronx, and Queens.

Dos and Don’ts of Filling Out UD-11

Follow these dos because each one prevents a specific delay or substantive harm:

• Do download the latest official UD-11 form every time you file because the form is updated periodically and old versions are rejected.
• Do attach the most recent W-2 and 1040 to support every Line 1 entry because clerks cross-check the worksheet against tax filings.
• Do compute Line 10 with exact dollars because rounding errors compound through Lines 13 and 18.
• Do include health insurance premium documentation because Line 20 add-ons require proof of cost.
• Do recite the presumptive amount in any settlement that deviates because the recital is required by statute.

Avoid these don’ts because each one creates a discoverable error that an opposing party or judge can exploit later:

• Don’t hide self-employment income because depreciation add-backs on Line 4(b) and bank-deposit analysis can both expose underreporting.
• Don’t deduct voluntary retirement contributions because the CSSA list is exclusive.
• Don’t assume the income cap is a ceiling because downstate judges routinely pierce it.
• Don’t treat 50/50 custody as a no-support situation because Bast v. Rossoff requires the higher earner to pay.
• Don’t sign the worksheet under duress because a coerced UD-11 can be vacated under CPLR §5015(a)(3).

Pros and Cons of the UD-11 Framework

The CSSA worksheet structure has clear advantages, each of which serves a policy goal:

• Predictability — Parents can estimate support in advance, which reduces litigation costs.
• Transparency — Both parties must disclose income on a sworn document, which deters hidden income.
• Equity — Pro rata add-ons prevent the custodial parent from bearing all childcare and medical costs.
• Judicial efficiency — Judges can audit a UD-11 in under five minutes, which speeds dockets.
• Appeal-proofing — A complete UD-11 with recitals shields the judgment from later vacatur motions.

The framework also has disadvantages, each of which can affect a specific family:

• Rigid percentages — The CSSA percentages do not flex for high-cost-of-living areas like Manhattan or Westchester.
• Cap volatility — The biennial cap adjustment creates planning uncertainty for high-income families.
• Imputed income risk — Self-employed and gig workers face aggressive imputation that can outpace actual earnings.
• Add-on disputes — Childcare and unreimbursed medical add-ons are frequent post-judgment litigation triggers.
• Pro se difficulty — The worksheet’s vocabulary, even at the 9th-grade level, still confuses many self-represented litigants.

Key Entities Involved in the UD-11 Process

The plaintiff is the spouse who files for divorce and prepares the initial UD-11. The defendant is the responding spouse, who must verify income disclosures. The New York State Office of Court Administration publishes and updates the form. The matrimonial clerk’s office reviews each packet for completeness before transmitting it to a Justice. The Justice or court attorney-referee signs the judgment of divorce. The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance operates the Child Support Standards Chart and adjusts the income cap every two years.

Outside agencies also matter. The Support Collection Unit processes payments once the judgment is entered. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance intercepts tax refunds for arrears. Each entity touches a different stage of the support obligation, and a defective UD-11 can disrupt all of them.

A common misconception is that the family court and supreme court use different forms. Family Court uses FCA §413 worksheets, but the math is identical to UD-11.

Recap of Key Court Rulings

Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649 (1995) confirms that judges may apply the CSSA percentages to combined income above the cap when they articulate reasons on the record. Holterman v. Holterman, 3 N.Y.3d 1 (2004) confirms that the CSSA’s allowed deductions are exclusive. Bast v. Rossoff, 91 N.Y.2d 723 (1998) sets the rule that in shared-custody arrangements, the higher-earning parent pays support to the lower-earning parent.

The consequence of ignoring these precedents is reversal on appeal. The Appellate Division has applied Cassano hundreds of times to remand support orders that lacked an explanation for cap-piercing.

A common misconception is that older cases no longer apply because the CSSA has been amended. The amendments raised the cap and tweaked deductions, but the core analytic framework from these three cases remains binding law.

NYC-Specific Filing Notes

In the five boroughs, UD-11 is filed with the New York County Supreme Court Matrimonial Centralized Case Processing unit or its borough counterpart, and many judges require notarization of the worksheet. NYC residents must include the city’s resident income tax on Line 9 because NYC tax is one of the few deductible taxes under the CSSA. Yonkers residents follow the same rule for Yonkers tax.

The consequence of leaving NYC tax off Line 9 is overpayment of support, sometimes by $1,500 to $3,500 per year for middle-income filers. Carlos Mendez, a Bronx teacher, recovered roughly $11,200 in overpaid support after an attorney spotted the missing NYC tax deduction during a post-judgment audit.

A common misconception is that NYC has its own divorce form. It does not; UD-11 is statewide.

FAQs

Is UD-11 required in every New York uncontested divorce?

Yes. UD-11 is required in every uncontested divorce involving a child under 21, regardless of whether the parents agree on support, share custody equally, or claim no support is owed.

Can I use my net pay instead of gross income on Line 1?

No. Line 1 requires gross income from the most recent federal tax return, not take-home pay; using net pay understates income and triggers automatic clerk rejection or judicial imputation.

Does UD-11 apply if my child is over 18?

Yes. New York requires child support until age 21 under DRL §240, so UD-11 must be filed for any child of the marriage under 21.

Can I deduct my 401(k) contributions on UD-11?

No. Voluntary retirement contributions are not on the CSSA’s exclusive list of deductions; only FICA, Medicare, NYC tax, Yonkers tax, maintenance paid, and a few others qualify under Lines 6 through 9.

Is the $183,000 income cap a hard ceiling?

No. The cap is the amount to which percentages automatically apply, but judges routinely apply percentages above the cap under Cassano v. Cassano, especially in downstate counties.

Can my spouse and I agree to zero child support?

Yes, but only if you recite the presumptive CSSA amount on UD-11, explain why deviation serves the child’s best interest, and the judge approves; otherwise the agreement is voidable.

Do I need to refile UD-11 every year?

No. UD-11 is filed once with the divorce; modifications later use Family Court forms under FCA §451 when income changes by 15% or more or three years pass.

Does 50/50 custody eliminate child support?

No. Under Bast v. Rossoff, the higher-earning parent is treated as the non-custodial parent and pays support to the lower-earning parent.

Can I file UD-11 without an attorney?

Yes. New York’s DIY Uncontested Divorce Program is designed for pro se litigants, but the worksheet’s accuracy is your responsibility.

Will the court verify the income I list on UD-11?

Yes. Matrimonial clerks compare Line 1 against the W-2s and 1040s in the packet, and judges can order discovery or impute income if the figures look implausible.

Can UD-11 be amended after the judgment?

Yes, by post-judgment motion or modification petition under FCA §451, though the original UD-11 remains part of the permanent court record.

What happens if I refuse to sign UD-11?

No judgment of divorce will issue without a signed UD-11; the case sits in suspense, and after 90 days the court can dismiss for failure to prosecute under 22 NYCRR §202.27.