Child support is a hot-button issue for many divorcing couples, but perhaps never more so than when one of those parents has considerable income and wealth. 

When that's the situation, you can generally expect the usual formulas and guidelines established by your state to go out the proverbial window. The state formulas simply aren't designed to deal with very large figures. So, what does happen instead? Here are some possibilities.

The Court Can Use Its Discretion 

Family court judges are given a great deal of leeway in divorce cases where the children are concerned. The trend in cases where a parent is very wealthy is to look at all the relevant factors, not just the minimal needs of the children. The court is likely to consider:

• The ability of the parent with the larger income to pay child support in excess of the state formula
• The lifestyle the children would have enjoyed if their parents had remained married
• The disparity between what the children have available at each household
• The actual needs of the children, as demonstrated by the parent receiving support

For example, imagine that the father in a case is a professional sports star. He makes more than 20 million per year between his contract and his endorsements. The court will want to keep the lifestyle of the children reasonably consistent whether they're at their father's home or their mother's -- so amenities like tutors or private tennis lessons and other things that might be considered luxuries to many can be redesignated as "needs" by the court -- especially when they're already enjoyed by the children.

Wealthy Parents Can Argue Against Excessive Support

Even though children typically benefit from their parents' increased wealth, that doesn't mean a parent with significant financial means can't ask the court to put reasonable limits on what he or she has to pay. 

In some cases, the paying parent can argue that the "needs" listed by the receiving parent are essentially just "wants" that would benefit the receiving parent more than they would the children. For example, a nanny might be convenient for the receiving parent -- but not really a true benefit to the children. This is particularly true if the children don't have a nanny at both houses and didn't have one prior to the divorce.

In other cases, the paying parent can argue that he or she is being required to fund the receiving parent's lifestyle. In other words, the child support actually constitutes a sort of hidden spousal support. In those cases, the court may require the receiving parent to show some kind of justification for the excess support to make sure that the process is fair to the paying parent.

Because of these possibilities, it's important for any parent involved in a high-stakes case to have experienced legal representation. Going into the process without it could make getting a fair result on the issue of child support next to impossible.