Form UD-8 is the Child Support Worksheet you must file in every New York uncontested divorce that involves minor children, and you fill it out by listing each parent’s gross income, subtracting allowed deductions, applying the statutory percentage to the combined parental income, and then dividing the basic child support obligation between the parents in proportion to their incomes under the Child Support Standards Act.
The form looks short, but every blank line carries legal weight. A wrong number on Line 1, a missed deduction on Line 6, or a skipped justification on Line 15 can cause the County Clerk to reject your divorce packet, delay your judgment by months, or saddle you with a support order that does not match your real budget. According to the New York State Office of Child Support Services, more than 240,000 active child support orders run through the Support Collection Unit, and worksheet errors remain one of the top three reasons uncontested matrimonial packets are returned by clerks.
Here is what you will learn in this guide:
- 📋 How to complete every line of Form UD-8 without guessing
- 💵 How to calculate gross income, FICA, and Medicare deductions correctly
- ⚖️ How the Child Support Standards Act sets percentages and the 2024-2026 income cap
- 🧮 Three real-world named examples, including a high-earner above the cap
- 🚫 The seven costliest mistakes that get UD-8 rejected and how to avoid them
What Form UD-8 Actually Is
Form UD-8 is the official Child Support Worksheet approved by the New York State Office of Court Administration for uncontested divorces filed under Domestic Relations Law §170. The form translates the statutory math of the Child Support Standards Act, codified at DRL §240(1-b), into a line-by-line calculation that the judge signs into the Judgment of Divorce. Without UD-8, the court has no way to confirm that the support amount in your stipulation matches the presumptive guideline, which is why the clerk will not accept your packet without it.
The plain-English purpose is simple: UD-8 forces both parents to disclose income on the record so the court can decide a fair amount for the children. The consequence of skipping or fudging it is severe. Judges routinely reject packets, and in some cases under DRL §244 a parent who hides income can be hit with retroactive arrears and counsel fees. A common misconception is that UD-8 is optional when parents agree on a number. It is not. Even when you and your spouse agree, the worksheet must be filed so the court can compare your agreed number to the presumptive amount.
Imagine Maria, a teacher in Queens, who files her uncontested divorce without UD-8 because she and her ex agreed on $600 per month. The clerk rejects the entire packet. Maria loses her place in the queue, pays a new Request for Judicial Intervention fee, and waits another four months. The fix would have taken her twenty minutes if she had filled out UD-8 the first time.
Who Must File UD-8
Every divorcing parent of a child under 21 in New York must file UD-8, whether the case is contested or uncontested, because Family Court Act §413 and DRL §240(1-b) apply identically to both venues. The rule exists because New York treats child support as a right belonging to the child, not the parents, so they cannot waive the disclosure even by mutual agreement. The consequence of not filing is a returned packet and, in rare cases, a finding under 22 NYCRR §202.16 that the parties failed to comply with mandatory disclosure.
For example, David and his wife agreed she would keep their daughter and waive support entirely. They still had to file UD-8 showing the calculation, and then sign a separate written waiver explaining why they deviated to zero. The misconception that no support means no worksheet has cost many couples weeks of delay.
When UD-8 Gets Filed
UD-8 is filed as part of the uncontested divorce packet alongside UD-1 through UD-13, at the moment you submit the Judgment of Divorce for signature. You do not file UD-8 separately or earlier. The plain-English reason is that the court reviews the entire packet at once, and the worksheet must align with the numbers in your stipulation, your Net Worth Statement, and your Judgment.
The consequence of filing UD-8 alone or out of order is administrative rejection. A real example: Priya mailed UD-8 to the clerk a week before the rest of her packet thinking she was being efficient. The clerk shredded it and told her to refile everything together. The misconception that you can stage filings does not match how the Matrimonial Part processes uncontested cases.
Line-by-Line Walkthrough of UD-8
The worksheet is divided into 21 numbered lines plus signature blocks. Each line corresponds to a step in the statutory formula. Skipping a line, leaving it blank, or writing N/A without explanation causes rejection. The form is fillable as a PDF on the official OCA site.
Line 1: Gross Income from Most Recent Tax Return
Line 1 asks for each parent’s gross total income as reported on the most recent federal tax return, specifically Line 9 of the IRS Form 1040. Gross income includes wages, salaries, self-employment income, interest, dividends, rental income, and capital gains. The reason gross income is used, not adjusted gross income, is that DRL §240(1-b)(b)(5) defines income broadly to capture every dollar a parent earns before federal manipulations.
The consequence of using AGI instead of gross income is understating support, which the court will catch and force you to amend. A common misconception is that pre-tax 401(k) contributions reduce your Line 1 number. They do not, because they are added back under DRL §240(1-b)(b)(5)(iii)(A). For example, James, a Manhattan banker, reported $185,000 AGI but had $23,000 in 401(k) contributions. His true Line 1 figure is $208,000.
Line 2: Investment Income
Line 2 captures investment income that is not already on the tax return, such as tax-exempt municipal bond interest. The reason this line exists is that the CSSA treats every income stream as available for the children, not just taxable streams. Skipping Line 2 when you hold tax-free bonds is treated as concealment, and judges have imposed counsel fees under DRL §238 for this exact omission.
A common misconception is that municipal bond income is invisible to the court. It is not, because the parties exchange Statements of Net Worth that disclose holdings. Linda learned this when her ex’s attorney pulled her brokerage statement during discovery and demanded an amended UD-8.
Lines 3 and 4: Imputed and Additional Income
Line 3 covers income the court should impute to a parent who is voluntarily underemployed, deferring compensation, or receiving non-cash perks like a company car. Line 4 covers public assistance, unemployment, workers’ compensation, disability, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, pensions, fellowships, and annuity payments. Both lines exist because DRL §240(1-b)(b)(5)(iv) and (v) demand that the court look beyond W-2 wages.
The consequence of leaving these blank when applicable is a finding of imputed income at a higher figure than the parent would have voluntarily reported. Carlos quit a $90,000 sales job two months before filing and listed only his $15,000 unemployment. The court imputed $90,000 based on his earning history, and his support obligation tripled. The misconception that recent unemployment locks in a lower number is wrong.
Line 5: Self-Employment Adjustments
Line 5 lets self-employed parents deduct depreciation and business entertainment expenses that the IRS allows but the CSSA disallows, with the result being that those amounts get added back to income. The reason is that aggressive Schedule C deductions can artificially shrink income and starve the children. The consequence of failing to add back is, again, retroactive amendment.
For example, Sofia, a freelance photographer, claimed $40,000 in Section 179 depreciation on equipment. The court added that $40,000 back to her Line 1 figure for child support purposes. The misconception that tax law and family law treat deductions identically is one of the most common errors among small business owners.
Line 6: FICA and Local Tax Deductions
Line 6 subtracts unreimbursed employee business expenses, alimony or maintenance paid to a non-party spouse, child support actually paid for non-subject children, public assistance, supplemental security income, New York City or Yonkers income tax actually paid, and FICA (Social Security and Medicare) taxes actually paid. The reason these come out is that DRL §240(1-b)(b)(5)(vii) treats them as money the parent never sees.
The consequence of skipping FICA is overstating the support base by 7.65 percent, which can mean hundreds of dollars per month in extra obligation. Anita, a Bronx nurse, forgot to deduct her $5,400 FICA from her $70,000 salary, and her order came in $40 per month higher than it should have. A common misconception is that you can deduct federal or state income tax. You cannot, because only the specifically listed taxes qualify.
Line 7: Adjusted CSSA Income for Each Parent
Line 7 is simple subtraction: Line 1 plus Lines 2-4 minus Lines 5 and 6 deductions for each parent separately. The result is each parent’s CSSA income. The reason for separating the parents is that the next step combines them but the percentages applied later need each parent’s individual share.
The consequence of math errors here is rejection by the clerk, who literally re-runs the math. Tom transposed a digit and wrote $54,000 instead of $45,000 on Line 7. The clerk caught it, returned the packet, and Tom waited six weeks for resubmission.
Line 8: Combined Parental Income
Line 8 adds both parents’ Line 7 figures. The reason this matters is that the CSSA percentage is applied to the combined income, not each parent’s income separately. The consequence of using only one parent’s income is undercounting support by half.
A common misconception is that the higher earner’s income alone drives the calculation. It does not. Rachel earned $80,000, her ex earned $40,000, and their combined Line 8 figure of $120,000 was used to find the basic obligation, then split pro rata.
Line 9: Pro Rata Share for Each Parent
Line 9 expresses each parent’s share of the combined income as a percentage. You take Line 7 for each parent, divide by Line 8, and multiply by 100. The reason is that this percentage determines how the basic obligation is split. The consequence of rounding errors here ripples through every later line.
In Rachel’s case, her share is 80,000 ÷ 120,000 = 66.67 percent, and her ex’s share is 33.33 percent. The misconception that the parties can pick whatever split they want is wrong. The split is mathematical.
Line 10: Statutory Percentage and Combined Cap
Line 10 multiplies the combined Line 8 figure (up to the statutory cap) by the CSSA percentage based on the number of children: 17 percent for one child, 25 percent for two, 29 percent for three, 31 percent for four, and no less than 35 percent for five or more, as set in DRL §240(1-b)(b)(3). The combined parental income cap was raised to $183,000 effective March 1, 2024, per the biennial update by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and remains in effect through 2026.
The consequence of applying the percentage to the entire combined income above the cap without a written justification is automatic rejection or, worse, an order that gets reversed on appeal. Marcus and his wife earned $300,000 combined and applied 25 percent to the full amount. The judge required a written deviation analysis under Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649 (1995). A common misconception is that the cap is a ceiling. It is a default ceiling that the court can pierce for good reason.
Line 11: Basic Child Support Obligation
Line 11 is the dollar figure produced by Line 10. The reason this number exists separately is to fix the presumptive amount before allocating between the parents. The consequence of skipping Line 11 is that the clerk cannot verify Line 12.
For example, Kevin and his wife had a Line 8 of $100,000 and two children. Their Line 11 is $100,000 × 25 percent = $25,000 per year. The misconception that this is the final number ignores Line 12.
Line 12: Each Parent’s Pro Rata Share of the Basic Obligation
Line 12 multiplies Line 11 by Line 9 for each parent. The non-custodial parent’s Line 12 is the presumptive support amount. The reason the custodial parent’s share is calculated too is transparency: the court wants both numbers visible so the parties understand the math.
The consequence of swapping the parents’ percentages here is a support order that runs the wrong direction. Elena listed herself as non-custodial by mistake, and her draft Judgment ordered her to pay support to a child living with her. She caught it before signing, but barely.
Line 13: Health Insurance Premium Allocation
Line 13 allocates the cost of the children’s health insurance premium pro rata between the parents. The reason is that DRL §240(1-b)(c)(5) treats medical coverage as a mandatory add-on. The consequence of skipping it is that the parent paying the premium absorbs the entire cost without reimbursement.
Jennifer paid $400 per month for her son’s coverage. Her pro rata share was 60 percent, so her ex owed her $160 per month under Line 13. The misconception that health premiums are baked into Line 11 is wrong. They are separate.
Line 14: Child Care Expenses
Line 14 allocates work-related or education-related child care expenses pro rata. The reason is that DRL §240(1-b)(c)(4) treats child care as a mandatory add-on when the custodial parent is working, in school, or training for work. The consequence of leaving Line 14 blank when child care exists is that the custodial parent shoulders the entire cost.
For example, Sandra paid $1,200 per month for after-school care so she could work. Her ex’s pro rata share was 45 percent, so he owed an extra $540 per month. A common misconception is that babysitting for date nights counts. It does not, because only work and education-related care qualifies.
Line 15: Unreimbursed Health Care Expenses
Line 15 allocates future unreimbursed medical, dental, optical, and mental health expenses pro rata. The reason is that DRL §240(1-b)(c)(5)(v) treats these as mandatory add-ons. The consequence of skipping Line 15 is fighting in court every time a child needs braces or therapy.
Hassan’s daughter needed $6,000 in orthodontia. Because Line 15 was completed properly, his ex paid 55 percent automatically. The misconception that you can leave this for later is wrong, because retroactive allocation requires a separate motion and counsel fees.
Line 16: Educational Expenses
Line 16 allocates educational expenses, including private school and college, when the court deems them appropriate under DRL §240(1-b)(c)(7). The reason is that New York permits but does not mandate college contribution. The consequence of leaving this blank is that you cannot later compel contribution without a separate proceeding.
For example, Patricia and her ex agreed each would pay 50 percent of their daughter’s SUNY tuition. They wrote the agreement on Line 16 and attached a rider. The misconception that New York automatically orders college support is wrong, because it is discretionary.
Line 17: Low-Income Adjustments
Line 17 applies the self-support reserve and poverty level adjustments under DRL §240(1-b)(d). For 2026, the self-support reserve is $20,331 (135 percent of the federal poverty level for one person), and the poverty level is $15,650. If the non-custodial parent’s income after support would fall below the self-support reserve, support is reduced. If income is below the poverty level, support is set at $25 per month.
The consequence of skipping Line 17 when it applies is ordering support that the obligor cannot pay, which leads to arrears and potential incarceration under FCA §454. Robert earned $22,000 per year, and his presumptive support of $4,000 per year would have dropped him below the reserve. Line 17 reduced his obligation to the difference. The misconception that low-income parents pay the full percentage is wrong.
Lines 18-20: Non-Recurring Income, Other Factors, and Justifications
Line 18 addresses non-recurring income such as bonuses, lottery winnings, or inheritance, which the court may apportion separately. Line 19 lists the ten statutory factors under DRL §240(1-b)(f) that justify a deviation from the presumptive amount, including the financial resources of the parents, the physical and emotional health of the child, and the standard of living the child would have enjoyed. Line 20 is the written explanation when the parties deviate.
The consequence of deviating without filling out Lines 19 and 20 is automatic rejection, because 22 NYCRR §202.16(k) requires written findings. Diego and his wife agreed to $400 per month when the presumptive amount was $700. They wrote a Line 20 explanation citing his second family obligations under factor (1)(f)(8), and the judge approved it. A common misconception is that mutual agreement alone justifies deviation. It does not, because the court must independently find the deviation is in the child’s best interest.
Line 21: Final Support Amount and Signatures
Line 21 states the final weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly support amount and the date payments begin. Both parents must sign and date the form, and signatures must be notarized in many counties, though some accept attorney certification. The reason for notarization is to lock in the income disclosure as a sworn statement under Penal Law §210.45 for false written statements.
The consequence of an unsigned UD-8 is rejection. The consequence of a falsely signed UD-8 is potential criminal prosecution, though convictions are rare. The misconception that you can sign UD-8 without reading every line is dangerous, because you are swearing to every number above your signature.
Three Real-World Scenarios
The math becomes clearer with concrete cases. Each scenario below reflects common situations New York parents actually face in 2026.
Scenario 1: W-2 Couple With Two Kids Under the Cap
| Worksheet Step | Result for the Garcia Family |
|---|---|
| Mom’s Line 7 income | $65,000 after FICA |
| Dad’s Line 7 income | $45,000 after FICA |
| Combined Line 8 | $110,000 |
| CSSA percentage (2 kids) | 25 percent |
| Line 11 basic obligation | $27,500 per year |
| Dad’s pro rata share (Line 9) | 40.9 percent |
| Dad’s Line 12 obligation | $11,247 per year, or $937 per month |
Maria Garcia keeps the children. Her ex Luis pays $937 monthly. Both sign Line 21 and the order goes in clean.
Scenario 2: High Earner Above the $183,000 Cap
| Worksheet Step | Result for the Chen Family |
|---|---|
| Combined Line 8 income | $350,000 |
| Income up to cap | $183,000 |
| Income above cap | $167,000 |
| Line 11 on capped income, 1 child | $31,110 per year |
| Court’s discretionary application above cap | 17 percent applied to additional $50,000 |
| Total annual obligation | $39,610 |
| Justification on Line 20 | Children’s private school and lifestyle |
Wei Chen earns $250,000 and his ex earns $100,000. The judge applied the percentage above the cap because of the children’s established standard of living, citing Cassano factors.
Scenario 3: Self-Support Reserve Adjustment
| Worksheet Step | Result for Robert |
|---|---|
| Robert’s Line 7 income | $21,500 |
| Self-support reserve (2026) | $20,331 |
| Presumptive support (1 child, 17 percent) | $3,655 per year |
| Income after presumptive support | $17,845 (below reserve) |
| Adjusted Line 17 obligation | $1,169 per year, or $97 per month |
Robert’s support is capped at the difference between his income and the self-support reserve, preventing him from falling below subsistence.
Mistakes to Avoid
Before signing UD-8, walk through this list. Each error has cost real New Yorkers months of delay or thousands of dollars.
- Using AGI instead of gross income on Line 1, which understates support and triggers amendment
- Forgetting to add back pre-tax retirement contributions, which the court will impute anyway
- Deducting federal or state income tax on Line 6, which is not permitted and causes rejection
- Skipping Line 17 self-support reserve calculation when the obligor is low-income, leading to unpayable orders
- Applying the CSSA percentage above the $183,000 cap without a written Line 20 justification, which violates Cassano
- Leaving Lines 13, 14, or 15 blank when health insurance, child care, or medical expenses exist, which forfeits reimbursement
- Failing to notarize Line 21 signatures, which causes the clerk to reject the entire packet
Do’s and Don’ts for UD-8
These rules come straight from OCA’s uncontested divorce instructions and from common county clerk practice across New York.
Do:
- Pull your most recent federal tax return before starting, because every Line 1 entry traces back to it
- Attach pay stubs and a W-2 to substantiate Line 1, since clerks often ask
- Use the Child Support Standards Chart to double-check your percentage, which prevents math errors
- Notarize signatures in front of a notary, because most clerks will not accept attorney certification
- File UD-8 as part of the full uncontested packet, not separately, to avoid administrative rejection
Don’t:
- Don’t list zero income without explaining why, because the court will impute earning capacity
- Don’t deviate from the presumptive amount without a written Line 20 justification, because deviations require findings
- Don’t forget the $25 per month floor for parents below the poverty level, which is mandatory under DRL §240(1-b)(d)
- Don’t include spousal maintenance as child support, because they are separate calculations on UD-7 and UD-8
- Don’t sign a blank UD-8 trusting your spouse to fill it in, because you are swearing to every number above your signature
Pros and Cons of Doing UD-8 Yourself
Self-represented parents save money, but the trade-offs are real. Here is the balanced view.
Pros:
- Saves $500 to $2,000 in attorney fees for a straightforward worksheet
- Forces both parents to confront the actual numbers, which can speed settlement
- The LawHelpNY self-help portal provides free step-by-step guidance
- Same official form whether attorney-prepared or pro se, so quality is identical when done right
- Builds long-term financial literacy that pays off when modifications are needed later
Cons:
- Easy to misclassify income, especially for self-employed or commission-based earners
- Hard to spot deviation opportunities without legal training, costing money over the life of the order
- Notary and filing logistics can trip up first-time filers, delaying the divorce
- No malpractice safety net if the worksheet is wrong, unlike attorney-prepared packets
- Modifications later require another worksheet, and errors compound across orders
Key Entities You Will Encounter
The UD-8 process touches several New York institutions and statutes. Knowing each role saves confusion.
The New York State Office of Court Administration publishes the form and the uncontested divorce packet. The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance sets the income cap and self-support reserve every two years. The Support Collection Unit processes payments once the order issues. The County Clerk in your county accepts the filing and stamps the index number. The Matrimonial Part judge signs the Judgment of Divorce after reviewing UD-8.
DRL §240(1-b) is the statutory engine, and FCA §413 mirrors it for Family Court matters. Cassano v. Cassano governs how courts handle income above the cap. The biennial COLA notice updates the dollar thresholds every March 1 of even years.
Filing UD-8 Within the Uncontested Divorce Packet
UD-8 does not stand alone. It travels with UD-1 (Summons) through UD-13 (Note of Issue), the RJI, the Statement of Net Worth, and the proposed Judgment of Divorce. UD-7 (Maintenance Worksheet) is filed only if spousal maintenance applies. UD-8(a) is the Support Collection Unit information form filed when payments will route through SCU.
The reason all forms travel together is that the judge reviews them as a unit, cross-checking numbers between UD-8, the Net Worth Statement, and the Judgment. The consequence of mismatched numbers across forms is rejection. Yvonne listed $50,000 income on UD-8 and $55,000 on her Net Worth Statement, and the clerk returned the packet with a sticky note demanding consistency. A common misconception is that small discrepancies are tolerated. They are not.
Recap of Key Court Rulings
Three appellate decisions shape how UD-8 is filled out today. Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649 (1995) requires courts to articulate reasons for applying the CSSA percentage above the statutory cap, which is why Line 20 must contain a written justification. Holterman v. Holterman, 3 N.Y.3d 1 (2004) clarified that maintenance paid is deducted from income before the CSSA percentage is applied, which is why Line 6 includes maintenance to non-party spouses but treats current-spouse maintenance differently.
Bast v. Rossoff, 91 N.Y.2d 723 (1998) confirmed that the CSSA applies to shared custody arrangements, with the higher-earning parent treated as the non-custodial parent for support purposes. The misconception that 50/50 custody zeroes out support is wrong, because Bast forecloses that argument.
FAQs
Is Form UD-8 required in every New York uncontested divorce with children?
Yes. Every uncontested divorce involving a child under 21 requires UD-8 because DRL §240(1-b) and FCA §413 mandate the worksheet, even when parents agree on the support amount.
Can my spouse and I waive child support entirely on UD-8?
No. You cannot waive support below the presumptive amount without a written Line 20 deviation justification approved by the judge, because child support belongs to the child, not the parents.
Does the $183,000 income cap apply automatically above that amount?
No. The cap is a default, but the court can apply the CSSA percentage to income above it after considering the Cassano factors and writing findings on Line 20.
Do I include my new spouse’s income on UD-8?
No. UD-8 captures only the income of the two divorcing parents, because a stepparent has no support obligation under DRL §240(1-b).
Can I deduct my federal income tax on Line 6?
No. Only FICA, Medicare, New York City or Yonkers income tax, maintenance to non-party spouses, child support for non-subject children, and unreimbursed business expenses are deductible on Line 6.
Is the self-support reserve adjusted every year?
Yes. The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance updates the self-support reserve and poverty level every two years on March 1, with the 2026 figures at $20,331 and $15,650 respectively.
Do I need to notarize UD-8 signatures?
Yes. Most New York County Clerks require notarized signatures on Line 21 because the form contains sworn income statements subject to Penal Law §210.45 penalties for false statements.
Can UD-8 be amended after the Judgment of Divorce?
Yes. You can modify the underlying support order through a modification petition under FCA §451 when there is a substantial change in circumstances, but the original UD-8 stays in the file.
Does UD-8 cover spousal maintenance?
No. Spousal maintenance has its own worksheet, UD-7, because DRL §236(B)(6) uses a different formula and different statutory caps than child support.
Is health insurance for the children handled on UD-8?
Yes. Line 13 allocates the children’s health insurance premium pro rata between the parents as a mandatory add-on under DRL §240(1-b)(c)(5).
Can self-employed parents deduct depreciation on UD-8?
No. The CSSA adds back depreciation and certain entertainment deductions on Line 5, even though the IRS allows them, because DRL §240(1-b)(b)(5)(vi) defines income more broadly than the tax code.
Does UD-8 apply if the children are over 18?
Yes. Child support in New York runs until age 21 under DRL §240(1-b)(b)(2), so UD-8 must be filed for any child under 21 unless the child is emancipated.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out New York Form UD-1 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out New York Form UD-11 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out New York Form UD-13 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Income and Expense Statement + FAQs
- How to Fill Out the Ohio Child Support Computation Worksheet + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Washington Form WSCSS Worksheets + FAQs
- How to Fill Out New York Form UD-12 (w/Examples) + FAQs