Singer Sia made headlines this week when court documents revealed she agreed to pay her estranged husband, Daniel Bernad, $42,500 per month in child support for their two-year-old son, Somersault Wonder. The payments kicked in on April 1, 2026, and will continue until the child turns 18 or graduates high school. On top of that monthly figure, Sia is also on the hook for private school tuition, extracurricular activities, health insurance, and uninsured medical costs. To round it out, she is required to maintain a $5 million life insurance policy.
Sia was characteristically candid about the arrangement, describing herself as “a sober working mom trying to buy peace” and noting that because she is the only income-earning parent, California’s child support system still obligated her to pay even though she has primary custody of her son. That comment alone opens up a fascinating window into how child support actually works — and it prompts a very Texas question: if this divorce had played out under the Texas Family Code, what would the numbers have looked like?
The Starting Point: Guideline Child Support in Texas
Texas uses a formula-based system for calculating child support. The idea is relatively simple: take the paying parent’s net monthly resources, apply a percentage based on the number of children, and you have your number. Under Texas Family Code Chapter 154, the percentages work out to 20% of net monthly resources for one child, 25% for two children, 30% for three, 35% for four, and 40% for five or more.
Net resources under the Texas Family Code are broader than just take-home pay. They include wages, salary, overtime, bonuses, commissions, self-employment income, rental income, interest, dividends, retirement income, and most other income streams. The court then subtracts federal income taxes (calculated as if the parent were a single filer claiming one exemption), Social Security taxes, and health insurance premiums paid for the child.
For most families, this formula works well. It provides predictability, minimizes courtroom battles over the dollar amount, and gives both parents a clear expectation from the start. Courts presume that guideline child support is both reasonable and in the best interest of the child.
The Cap: Where High Earners Hit a Ceiling
Here is where things get interesting for high-income cases. Texas places a cap on the amount of net monthly income that counts toward the guideline calculation. Effective September 1, 2025, that cap increased from $9,200 to $11,700 per month in net resources. This was the first adjustment since 2019, and it was a meaningful one.
What does that mean in practice? If a parent’s net monthly resources are $11,700 or above, the guideline percentages only apply to that $11,700 ceiling. Everything above it does not automatically factor in. So, a parent earning $50,000 a month in net resources would pay the same presumptive guideline amount as a parent earning $11,700; unless the court decides otherwise.
For one child, the new maximum guideline support comes out to $2,340 per month (20% of $11,700). For two children, it is $2,925. For a celebrity earning millions annually, these numbers represent a tiny fraction of actual income.
Texas Family Code Section 154.125 governs this cap, and the state reviews and adjusts it approximately every six years. The cap exists as a policy choice; the idea being that child support is meant to meet the child’s needs, not to function as a wealth transfer between parents. But as we will see, the cap is not the end of the conversation.
When the Guidelines Fall Short: Above-Guideline Child Support
Texas law treats the guidelines as a presumption, not an absolute ceiling. Texas Family Code Section 154.126 gives courts the authority to order child support above the guideline amount when the proven needs of the child justify going higher. The statute specifically contemplates situations where a parent’s income significantly exceeds the cap.
To get above-guideline support in Texas, the requesting parent has to rebut the presumption that guideline child support is adequate. That means presenting actual evidence of the child’s needs, not speculation, and not a general argument that the paying parent is wealthy. Courts look at what the child actually needs and what kind of lifestyle the child enjoyed or would reasonably enjoy given the parents’ financial circumstances.
Some of the most common reasons Texas courts deviate upward from guidelines include extraordinary medical expenses, private school tuition, consistent participation in competitive extracurricular activities, special needs that require professional care or therapy, and the overall standard of living the child was accustomed to during the marriage. The key phrase in Section 154.126 is “proven needs.” Judges want documentation, not generalities.
Importantly, the cap functions as a soft ceiling rather than a hard one. Courts in Texas have consistently recognized that applying the guideline cap to a parent earning substantially more than $11,700 per month could be unjust in the right circumstances. The statute requires the court to consider all relevant factors, including the child’s proven needs, the income of both parents, what the child’s standard of living would have been had the family remained intact, and whether special circumstances exist that warrant additional support.
The High-Income Parent Problem in Real Life
Consider what guideline-only child support looks like for a parent with net resources of, say, $100,000 per month. Under the Texas guidelines, a court would start with the $11,700 cap and award $2,340 per month for one child. That is 2.3% of actual net income. Many attorneys and family law judges find this result hard to square with the principle that child support should reflect the child’s actual needs and accustomed standard of living.
This is the real-world tension at the heart of high-income child support cases. On one side, you have the obligor parent arguing that guideline support is presumptively correct and that the cap exists for a reason. On the other side, the custodial parent is trying to show that the child’s real needs, a private school education, travel, participation in competitive sports or the arts, or simply maintaining continuity in a lifestyle the child has always known , cannot be met on $2,340 a month.
Courts navigate this by looking at what the money is actually for. Child support in Texas is not supposed to enrich the receiving parent. It is supposed to take care of the child. If the evidence shows that private school costs $30,000 per year, that the child requires regular therapeutic support, or that the family always took multiple international vacations and attended cultural events as part of normal family life, a court has the legal foundation to go above the guidelines.
Both parents can also agree to child support above or below the guidelines. If they reach a negotiated agreement, Texas courts are generally required to accept that agreement if it is the product of a binding Mediated Settlement Agreement, even if the amount deviates from what the court would otherwise order. This is significant because, as Sia’s case illustrates, the parties often settle at numbers that reflect the real economics of a high-income household rather than what any formula would produce.
What Sia’s Case Would Have Looked Like in Texas
Sia’s case was filed in Los Angeles County under California law, not Texas. California has its own child support formula, which is quite different from Texas, and which explains, in part, why her monthly obligation reached $42,500 even though she has primary custody. California’s guidelines are more sensitive to income disparities between parents and custody percentages.
In Texas, the analysis would not have started with a number. It would have started with a threshold question: should Sia, as the custodial parent, be paying child support to Bernad at all?
Texas law typically presumes that the non-custodial parent, referred to as the “obligor,” pays support to the custodial parent, referred to as the “obligee.” But that presumption is not absolute. Section 154.001(a) of the Texas Family Code expressly states that a court may order “either or both parents” to support a child in the manner specified by the order. And Section 153.138 goes a step further, explicitly authorizing a court to order one joint managing conservator to pay support to the other, regardless of which parent holds the primary right to designate the child’s residence.
So Bernad would have had a real legal hook, but also a real burden. He would need to demonstrate that an order requiring Sia to pay support is actually in their son’s best interest. That means presenting concrete evidence, not just pointing to Sia’s bank account. A Texas court would expect him to show a meaningful income disparity between the parties, lay out his actual possession time with the child and how that schedule affects his costs, and make a genuine case that the child’s needs cannot be adequately met without financial support flowing from Sia to him. The fact that Bernad reportedly left his career as a radiation oncologist and has no current income would cut in his favor on the disparity question, but it would not automatically carry the day on best interest.
Assuming he clears that hurdle, the child support calculation would begin at the guidelines. With the current $11,700 net resource cap, the presumptive monthly obligation for one child comes out to $2,340. For a global recording artist, that number almost certainly understates what it actually costs to raise this child. Private schooling, consistent healthcare, extracurricular activities, and the kind of financial security that comes with Sia’s lifestyle do not fit neatly into a $2,340 monthly budget.
That is where Section 154.126 comes in. Bernad would need to build an evidentiary record, not a general argument that Sia is wealthy, but documented, itemized proof of what this child’s life actually costs. Annual private school tuition figures, healthcare expense records, receipts for agreed-upon extracurriculars, and a realistic monthly budget grounded in the child’s actual standard of living. Texas courts respond to specificity. The more concrete the evidence, the stronger the argument for going above the guidelines.
It is worth noting that California’s formula and Texas’s framework would likely have produced very different dollar amounts, even if both courts ultimately concluded that Sia owed support. Texas would have required Bernad to justify every dollar above $2,340. California, by contrast, leans more heavily on the income gap and custody split as drivers of the final number. That distinction matters, and it is a good reminder that where a divorce is filed can be just as consequential as the underlying facts.
What This Means for High Earners in Texas
If you are a high-income earner going through a divorce in Texas, the guidelines are your starting point, not your endpoint. The $11,700 cap means that the default obligation is far below what your actual income might suggest, but it does not mean the other parent cannot argue for more.
Whether you are the one paying or the one receiving, the most important thing you can do is build a clear, documented record of the child’s actual needs. Vague assertions that a wealthy parent should pay more will not move a Texas court. Specific, itemized evidence of real expenses and real needs absolutely can.
Sia described her situation as “trying to buy peace,” and there is something honest about that framing. High-income divorce cases are expensive, contentious, and emotionally exhausting. Sometimes the most practical outcome is a negotiated settlement that lands somewhere between what the guidelines would produce and what one party is asking for, with the understanding that it reflects what the child actually needs to thrive.
Texas family courts are not in the business of punishing success. But they are in the business of making sure that children in high-income families are taken care of at a level that reflects the actual world they live in. That is what above-guideline child support is for, and when used correctly, it is a legitimate and important tool.
This blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every family law case is different. If you have questions about child support under the Texas Family Code, you should consult a licensed Texas family law attorney.