Short answer. Your child gets priority. Article 200 of the Family Code contains a specific rule: when a spouse and a child subject to parental authority are both claiming support from the same person and that person cannot satisfy both, the child shall be preferred over the spouse.
What the law says
unless the concurrent obligees should be the spouse and a child subject to parental authority, in which case the child shall be preferred
Family Code, Article 200 — Dividing the Support Obligation; Competing Claims. Read the full provision →
The rule when you cannot afford both
Article 200 of the Family Code sets up the general rule for competing support claims: when two or more people are claiming support from one person who cannot satisfy everyone, the order of preference set out in the preceding article applies. But there is an explicit exception carved out for your exact situation. The article states that "unless the concurrent obligees should be the spouse and a child subject to parental authority, in which case the child shall be preferred." That exception overrides the general ordering rule. Between spouse and child, the child wins.
Why the child takes precedence
The preference for the child reflects the vulnerability and dependency that parental authority implies. A child subject to parental authority is, by definition, a minor who depends on parents for shelter, food, education, and health. A spouse, while equally entitled to support, is generally presumed capable of some degree of self-provision — or at minimum, of seeking relief through other legal channels. The law's ordering acknowledges that the consequences of inadequate support fall most heavily on children, and it resolves the competition in their favor.
When multiple people share the obligation
Article 200 also addresses a different scenario: when the obligation to give support falls on two or more people. In that case — for example, when both you and a grandparent owe support to the same child — the payment is divided between the obligors in proportion to their resources. A court may order one obligor to pay provisionally in urgent circumstances, without affecting the other obligors' duty to contribute their share. This proportional-division rule is separate from the child-over-spouse preference; both can operate in the same situation.
What this means practically
If a court is asked to fix support amounts and your resources are genuinely limited, the law requires that the child's needs be addressed first. This does not mean the spouse is left with nothing indefinitely — it means the child's claim is satisfied before the balance is allocated. The spouse retains the right to claim support; the statute simply resolves the order when both cannot be fully met at once. If your financial situation changes, either party can return to court to have the support amounts reviewed.