CHILD SUPPORT

D. Patrick McCullough

and Lisa Watson Cyr

McCullough, Smith, Kempe, Williams & Cyr, P.A. 905 Parkway Drive St. Paul, MN 55117

(651) 772-3446

January 27, 2004

CHILD SUPPORT

Parents of Minnesota children have a duty to provide for their children, and the court must include an order for support in any decree of dissolution, legal separation, or annulment, Minn. Stat. §518.57, and in actions under Minn. Statutes 256, 257, 518 or in a domestic abuse order.[1] The definition of persons owed a duty of support can be found under Minn. Stat. §518.54, Subd. 2, which defines a “child” as follows: “Child” means an individual under 18 years of age, an

individual under age 20 who is still attending secondary school, or an individual who, by reason of physical or mental condition, is incapable of self-support.[2]

As it is the child‟s right to receive support, an agreement to waive a child support obligation is considered contrary to public policy and unenforceable.[3] Generally, a trial court may not order retroactive child support for dates prior to the commencement of an action under Chapter 518. However, the power to award retroactive child support is not lost forever. The trial court may do so as part of the final decree.[4]

I. AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT

A. Guidelines. The statutory guidelines set forth in Minn. Stat. §518.551 apply to all child support cases and all awards must be supported by detailed findings of fact with respect to the factors considered in arriving at the original award or modification amount.[5] However, in nonpublic assistance cases, the guidelines only provide a point for the courts to start in making their determination, after considering the other elements set forth in Minn. Stat. §518.551.

Child support generally should be set in a specific dollar amount.[6] Each child support award must be supported by specific findings; it is not sufficient that the record supports the trial court‟s decision relative to the amount of child support or that the amount of support is within the trial court‟s discretion.[7]

Although the child support guidelines are not binding upon the trial court as a

“cap”, generally the Court of Appeals has held that the guidelines apply unless there are specific findings addressing all relevant factors, including the obligor‟s standard of living and the child(ren)‟s needs that might exceed the guideline amounts.[8]

B. Deviation from the Guidelines. The court can deviate from the child

support guidelines; however, inasmuch as the statutory guidelines are a “rebuttable

presumption,” it must be used in all cases when establishing or modifying child support. If the court orders support pursuant to the guidelines, the court must make written findings concerning the amount of the obligor‟s income used as a basis for the guidelines calculation and “any other significant evidentiary factors affecting the determination of child support.” If the court deviates above or below the guidelines, the court must make written findings giving the amount of the support calculated under the guidelines, the reasons for the deviation, and must specifically address the relevant statutory factors (see Minn. Stat. §518.551(c)), and how the deviation serves the best interests of the child(ren). (Minn. Stat. §518.551(i)). Application of the Hortis/Valento child support formula to a case in which physical custody is solely vested in one parent is a deviation from the child support guidelines and must be supported by findings required by Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(i).[9] A district court awarding physical custody must affirmatively identify whether the custody award is joint physical or sole physical custody for purposes of determining whether it is appropriate to apply the Hortis/Valento child support formula.[10]

If the child support payments are assigned to the public agency under Minn. Stat.

§256.74, the court may not deviate from the child support guidelines unless the court specifically finds that the failure to deviate downward would impose an extreme hardship on the obligor. (Minn. Stat. §518.51(j)).[11]

Minnesota Statute §518.551 specifically enumerates the following factors that

may be considered by the courts in establishing a support obligation: (a) the financial resources and needs of the child(ren);[12] (b) the financial resources and needs of the custodial parent;[13] (c) the standard of living the child(ren) would have enjoyed had the marriage

not been dissolved.[14] (d) the physical and emotional condition of the child(ren);[15] (e) the educational needs of the child(ren);[16] (f) the financial resources and needs of the non-custodial party;[17] (g) all earnings, income, and resources of the obligor, including real and

personal property;[18] (h) the basic living needs of the obligor;[19] (i) the financial needs of the child(ren) to be supported;[20] (j) any previous support of maintenance orders, provided that the obligor is

paying them;[21]

(k) which parent receives the income tax dependency exemption and what

financial benefit the parent received from it.[22]

C. Reservation of Support. In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for the trial court to reserve the issue of child support.[23]

II. INCOME A. Net Income. In order to determine the proper level of child support, the court must first determine the obligor‟s net income. The statutory definition of “net income” is as follows: Net income is defined as:[24] Total monthly income less: 1. Federal Income Tax; 2. State Income Tax; 3. Social Security deductions; 4. Reasonable pension deductions; 5. Union dues; 6. Cost of dependant health insurance coverage; 7. Cost of individual or group health/hospitalization coverage

or an amount for actual medical expenses; 8. A child support or maintenance order that is currently

being paid. There also can be a deduction for certain debts as defined in the statute;[25] however, a downward departure from the guidelines based upon payment of private debt is limited to eighteen (18) months.[26] Net income does not include the income of the obligor‟s spouse or voluntary, sporadic over-time employment.[27] In determining the federal and state withholding taxes, the statute provides that the standard deductions apply and recommends the use of tax tables.

B. Sources of Income and Other Support Considerations.

1. Child support may be based upon military disability pay.[28]

2. Tax refunds constitute income in the year they are received.[29]

3. Business and depreciation expenses are allowed as deductions from income if they are taken in good faith and are legitimate

business enterprises and such deductions are necessary for capital purposes.[30]

4. Child‟s receipt of social security benefits (dependent‟s benefits)

from the account of the obligor does constitute payment of child support and the obligor is entitled to a credit.[31]

5. Disability payments may be considered as income in setting

amount of child support. [32] However, life insurance and long-term disability insurance expenses are not deductible in calculating net income.[33]

6. Part-time work may be considered in setting child support if the job

has been held for a significant period.[34]

7. MFIP is not income.[35]

8. Receipts from the liquidation of assets may be income.[36]

9. Car allowance may be income.[37] However, company car expenses are not deductible in calculating net monthly income.[38]

10. Rental income may be income.[39]

11. Student loans are public debts and may be considered in reducing

net income.[40]

12. Self-Employment. Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5b(e) provides income from self-employment is equal to gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses. Ordinary and necessary expenses do not include amounts allowed by the Internal Revenue Service for accelerated depreciation expenses or investment tax credits or any other business expenses determined by the court to be inappropriate for determining income for purposes of child support. The person seeking to deduct an expense, including depreciation, has the burden of proving, if challenged, that the expense is ordinary and necessary. Net income under this section may be different from taxable income.[41]

13. Structured Settlement. Periodic payments from a structured

settlement from a tort action are income for purposes of determining child support.[42]

14. Worker‟s Compensation. If worker‟s compensation payments are

“periodic” and are not in a lump sum, it is income for child support even if it includes impairment compensation to the disabled

individual.[43] The Court of Appeals held it was not error for the trial court to sequester appellant‟s worker‟s compensation lump sum payment for future child support and medical obligations where he has shown a history of failure to pay these obligations in the past.[44]

15. Overtime. The appellate court has held that it is within the trial

court‟s discretion to consider an obligor‟s overtime pay when determining child support, provided that overtime is a regular part of employment and not merely seasonal or sporadic.[45] It is also within the court‟s discretion to consider income earned by the obligor from extra part-time jobs if the extra employment provides a regular source of income.[46]

In 1990 the Minnesota Legislature enacted legislation to clarify the circumstances under which a trial court may consider a party‟s income from “excess employment” (overtime work or an additional part-time job) when determining the party‟s net income. Legislation generally excludes income from excess employment from the definition of net income provided that the court orders support in an amount at least equal to the guidelines amount based on income received from the obligor‟s regular 40-hour workweek and the party demonstrates, and the court finds, that: (a) the excess employment began after the petition for

dissolution was filed; (b) the excess employment reflects an increase in the

work schedule or hours worked over that of the two years immediately preceding the filing of the petition;

(c) the excess employment is voluntary and not a

condition of employment; (d) the excess employment is either additional part-time

work or overtime work compensable by the hour or fraction of an hour; and

(e) the party‟s compensation structure was not changed

for the purpose of affecting a support or maintenance obligation.[47]

16. Lifestyle of Obligor. The court may consider the lifestyle and

spending habits of the obligor as evidence of net income if the obligor‟s lifestyle does not comport with the obligor‟s claimed income.[48]

17. Gifts. A gift received by a child support obligor may be used to

determine the amount of the child support obligation if the gift “is regularly received from a dependable source.”[49] However, an expected gift is not always a resource subject to child support, because there is no obligation on donors to continue the gifts.[50]

18. In Kind Benefits. Religious institution providing in kind benefits to a

church member is a payor of funds under Minn. Stat. §518.611 and such benefits are income for purposes of child support.[51]

19. Seasonal Income. If the obligor has seasonal employment, the

court will establish the annual support so that the obligor makes either the same monthly payments throughout the year or monthly payments that reflect variations in income.[52]

20. Income Cap. Presently the guidelines provide for a percentage on

the high end or “cap” of $6,751. Every two years the Supreme Court can adjust this “cap” with the next adjustment due July 1, 2004.

21. Adoption Subsidy. Adoption subsidy is a resource attributable to

the child and consideration of the subsidy as an offset to child support depends on the needs of the child and the financial circumstances of the obligor and obligee.[53]

C. Ability – (See Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5b(c) and (d)).

1. A trial court cannot direct a person to work at a specific job against his will. That does not prohibit it, however, from directing a person to pay support commensurate with a wage he could earn if he sought employment in an occupation for which he is trained and has the present ability to perform.[54]

2. The Supreme Court has consistently held that it is proper to look

beyond an obligor‟s earnings to his earning capacity, and to disregard any inability to pay, which is voluntary on the part of the obligor.[55] However, the Court of Appeals has held that while you may look at the obligor‟s earning potential, you must also consider the issue of “choice” in the matter of unemployment or underemployment when considering income earning potential.[56] For example, in Murphy v. Murphy, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court‟s imputation of income to the father, when he had established that he had sincerely held religious beliefs that precluded substantial employment outside his religious community of which he had been a part for 20 years.[57]

However, in Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk,[58] the Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it attributed income to the former wife based on her new spouse‟s business income even though wife was a homemaker and did not receive a check from her new spouse‟s business because the wife testified that her current family‟s entire household living expenses were written off as business expenses and wife attempted to preclude an accurate estimate of the amount of the income that should be attributable to her.

3. Earning capacity is an appropriate measure of income when

obligor is unjustifiably self-limiting income or self-employment makes determination of income difficult.[59]

However, if there is a genuine change of careers and the underemployment is temporary and will ultimately lead to an increase in income, there should be no imputation of income.[60]

4. Trial court cannot speculate on future income in setting child support.[61]

5. The trial court was not in error in considering obligor‟s prior

income.[62]

6. If an obligor is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and the court is unable to determine or estimate the earning ability of a parent, the court may calculate child support and medical support based upon full-time employment of 40 hours per week at 150 percent of the Federal Minimum Wage or the Minnesota Minimum Wage, whichever is higher.

D. Effect of Subsequent Children – (See Minn. Stat. § 518.551, Subd. 5f)

1. Historical Background.

(a) Subsequent children may be relevant to the court‟s decision, but may not be factored into the guideline tables.[63]

(b) Obligations assumed due to a second marriage do not

mean that the obligor‟s duty to his first family is diminished.[64]

(c) Expenses for obligor‟s present family are to be considered

in setting child support obligation.[65]

(d) An obligor cannot avoid a support obligation by voluntarily incurring new liabilities. Nevertheless, consideration can be given to later-born children in modifying support. Children born to a later marriage are relevant and may be considered, but are “. . . not to be factored into the child support guideline tables . . .”.[66]

(e) Trial court directed to give more intensive consideration to

obligor‟s four children by a previous marriage that he resides with and supports. Receipt of MFIP does not preclude consideration of previous obligations.[67]

(f) Court should consider adopted child now in obligor‟s care,

but consideration of expenses should not exceed amount of support paid to previous children.[68]

(g) Multiple support obligations to older children and later-born

children may not be grouped together in Guidelines calculation; of course, determination of obligor‟s total ability to pay may require abandonment of the Guidelines in calculating appropriate obligation, leading to total award no greater than produced by this calculation.[69]

2. Current Law.

(a) Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5f superseded the principles set forth in Bock v. Bock, 506 N.W.2d 321 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993) concerning the issue of subsequent children. The statute provides that the needs of subsequent children shall not be factored into a support guidelines calculation and the fact that an obligor has additional children after the entry of a child support order is not grounds for a modification to decrease the amount of support owed. The statute does require, however, that consideration be given that an obligor has subsequent children when there is a request by an obligee to increase child support. The statute sets out the requirements in order to deviate from the support guidelines to consider subsequent children:

The trial court must:

1. find the obligor‟s total ability to contribute to

dependent children, taking into account the obligor‟s income and reasonable expenses exclusive of child care. The obligor‟s expenses must be:

(i) reduced as appropriate to take into account contributions to those costs by other adults who share the obligor‟s current household; and

(ii) apportioned between the parent and any

subsequent child with regard to shared benefits, including but not limited to, housing and transportation;

2. find the total needs of all the obligor‟s children, and

if these needs are less than the obligor‟s ability to pay, the needs may become the obligor‟s child support obligation. When considering the needs of subsequent children, the trial court must reduce those amounts as appropriate to take into account the ability to contribute to those needs by another parent of the children;

3. make specific findings on the needs of the child or

children who are subject of the support order under consideration; and

4. exercise discretion to fairly determine the current

support obligation and the contribution left available for other children, considering that the support obligation being determined should be in an amount at least equal to the contribution for a subsequent child.[70]

(b) Applying Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5f, the Court of

Appeals directed that when calculating support for a subsequent child under the guidelines, the support the obligor is paying pursuant to court order for older children should first be deducted; however, the Court of Appeals recognized that a district court may for good cause deviate from this mechanical approach by considering the needs of all of the obligor‟s children and making the appropriate findings after consideration of the requirements of Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5f. [71]

(c) For purposes of Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5f,

subsequent children means older children regardless of whether paternity and support are determined for an older child after support is set for a younger child. [72]

(d) Always distinguish later born children that may be considered, from un-adopted children of second spouse. There is no duty to support the latter.

(e) Various multiple family approaches.[73]

(i) Modified Reduced Ability Method. This approach is

similar to the formula authorized by statute for prior obligations where a child support order is deducted in arriving at net income.

$1,000 Net Income x 29% Guidelines for two prior children $ 290 $1,000 Net Income - 290 Less support for prior children $ 710 Reduced net income x 19% Guidelines for one child $ 135 $135 + $200 divided by 3 = $142 per capita support

or $284 for two prior children. (ii) Averaging Method. This method calculates support

under a straight guidelines approach and by an equal treatment approach and then sets support half way in between.

$1,000 Net Income x 29% Guidelines for two prior children $ 290 $1,000 Net Income x 34% Guidelines for three children (one $ 340 subsequent) x 2/3 Per Capital Calculation $ 227 ($289 + $227) = $258 support for prior children 2 (iii) Reduced Ability Method: The reduced ability

approach factors out an amount for the subsequent child before calculating support for the prior children.

$1,000 Net Income x 29% Guidelines for two prior children $ 290 $1,000 Net Income - 290 Less support for prior children $ 710 Reduced Net Income $ 710 Reduced Net Income x 19% Guidelines for subsequent child $ 135 $1,000 Original Net Income - 135 Support for subsequent child $ 865 Reduced Net Income x 27% Guidelines for two prior children $ 234 Support for prior children

E. Effects of Extended Parenting Time. Increased parenting time costs may

justify a departure from guidelines.[74] However, the obligor must demonstrate that increased visitation costs will create an inability to pay both parenting time costs and guidelines child support.[75] A child support order providing for a reduced child support obligation by the non-custodial parent during period of extended parenting time, must be supported by specific findings on the reasonable needs of the obligee and children during the period of reduced support.[76]

III. DURATION OF CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION

A. Date of original determination of child support obligation determines definition of child.[77] 1. Upon a showing that any child of the parties is either physically or

mentally deficient or unable to support himself when he reaches his majority, the trial court‟s authority to require child support may extend past the date upon which the child attains majority.[78]

2. In Krech v. Krech, 624 N.W.2d 310 (Minn.Ct.App. 2001), the

Court of Appeals held that the trial court had no authority to reopen a Judgment and Decree to award custody and child support for a 20-year-old daughter with learning disabilities where the daughter was not provided for in the Judgment and Decree. The Krech court affirmed that the only relief from the terms of the Judgment and Decree lies in meeting the requirements of Minn. Stat. §518.145, Subd. 2.

B. Additional reasons for termination of child support: 1. Emancipation. Support terminates automatically without court

order when the last child is emancipated. An emancipated minor is defined as “a person under the age of 18 years who has been married, is on active duty in the uniformed services of the United States, or who has been emancipated by a court of competent jurisdiction.”[79] However, if there is child support ordered for two or more children that is not a support obligation in a specific amount per child and the order or Decree does not specify any change when each child emancipates, the order continues at the full amount until modified.[80]

2. Death. The death of a parent obligated to pay child support does

not terminate the support obligation.[81] When a parent obligated to pay support dies, the amount of support may be modified, revoked, or commuted to a lump-sum payment to the extent just and appropriate in the circumstances.[82]

3. Termination of Parental Rights. Termination of parental rights is

appropriate only for the purposes of removing a child from a harmful environment or facilitating an adoption.[83]

IV. CHILD SUPPORT IN VARIOUS CUSTODY SITUATIONS

A. Joint Physical Custody. When the parties share joint physical custody, the Court of Appeals has adopted a cross-award formula for determining each parent‟s child support obligation.[84] The method for determining support in joint custody cases is to require the father to pay his guideline amount only during the times when the mother has custody and vice versa. This method should be used in all joint custody situations unless there are specific reasons for a departure.[85] In a subsequent Court of Appeals case, the cross-award formula for determining support in joint physical custody situations was set forth as follows:[86] Step One: Father‟s net monthly income x guideline % = Guideline support Guideline support x % of time Mother has custody = Father‟s adjusted

support Step Two: Mother‟s net monthly income x guideline % = Guideline support

Guideline support x % of time Father has custody = Mother‟s adjusted support

Step Three: Father‟s adjusted support – Mother‟s adjusted support = Net child

support award B. Joint Legal Custody. An award of joint legal custody is not a reason for departing from the statutory guidelines.[87] C. Split Custody. The Supreme Court has held that in split custody situations where each parent has sole physical custody of at least one child, it is proper to determine each party‟s support obligation under the guidelines and order the party with the greater obligation to pay the difference to the other party as child support.[88] D. Parenting Plans. Parenting plans under Minn. Stat. §518.1705 need not include the traditional designations of “custodial Parent” and “non-custodial parent”, which trigger the presumptions regulating application of the Child Support Guidelines. Even though Minn. Stat. §518.1705, Subd. 8(b) does allow parties to include in the parenting plan an allocation of expenses for the child such inclusion is optional. However, if the traditional custodial designations and allocations for expenses are omitted, then the district court must determine the traditional custodial designations for purposes of appropriate application of the Child Support Guidelines.[89]

V. INDEPENDENCE OF CHILD SUPPORT AND PARENTING TIME Interference with visitation rights or unlawful removal of a child from the state does not provide a defense to non-payment of child support.[90] Similarly, non-payment of support does not provide a defense for interfering with parenting time right or removing a child from the state without permission of the court or the non-custodial parent.[91]

VI. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT

A. COLA. Every order or decree for child support must provide for a biennial adjustment in child support, based on a change in the cost of living.[92] However, the trial court has discretion to determine whether all or part of a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) should take effect.[93] B. Modification of COLA. The court may waive the requirement of a cost-of-living clause if it makes a finding that either (a) the obligor‟s occupation or income does not provide for a cost-of-living adjustment, (b) the child support order provides for a step increase in lieu of a cost-of-living clause, or (c) the parties jointly waive this provision.[94]

VII. MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT

The court has continuing jurisdiction over the child support issue, and either party or the public authority responsible for support enforcement can move the court for a modification of the support order.[95] A modification of child support must be based on a showing that the terms of the underlying order are unreasonable and unfair because of one or more of the following six factors:[96] 1. substantially increased or decreased earnings of a party;[97] 2. substantially increased or decreased need of a party; 3. receipt of public assistance; 4. a change in cost of living for either party as measured by the Federal

Bureau of Statistics; 5. extraordinary medical expenses of the child not provided for under

section 518.171; or 6. the addition or elimination of work-related or education-related child care

expenses of the obligee or a substantial increase or decrease in existing work-related or education-related child care expenses.[98]

Before increasing a child support award, the trial court must first find one of the above six factors and also make a separate finding that the existence of such a factor makes the original order unreasonable and unfair.[99] The court must specifically find that a change in circumstances makes the original order unreasonable and unfair. It is not sufficient that the record contains evidence to support such a conclusion.[100] It is presumed that there has been a substantial change in circumstances under the six factors listed above, and a support order is rebuttably presumed to be unreasonable and unfair, if the application of the statutory child support guidelines to the current circumstances of the parties results in a calculated court order that is at least twenty percent and at least $50 per month higher or lower than the current support obligation or under other circumstances such as the medical support provisions of the order established under §518.171 are not enforceable by the public authority or the custodial parent or health coverage ordered under §518.171 is not available to the child for whom the order is established by the parent ordered to provide; or the existing support obligation is in the form of a statement of percentage and not a specific dollar amount.[101] In weighing rebuttal evidence, the trial court is required to evaluate the obligee‟s proof of a change in circumstances of the obligee and the child and to thoroughly assess the obligor‟s circumstances.[102] If evidence is submitted by the

obligor to rebut the presumption of unfairness, the trial court is required to make findings regardless of whether or not it modifies the support order.[103] An increase in a child-support obligor‟s parenting time is not a sufficient basis, standing alone, to require a downward deviation from the child-support guidelines even where the obligor‟s parenting time increased to approximately 67% of the time when the parties had not initially agreed to a Hortis/Valento formula.[104] The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify a maintenance or support order.[105] The court is not precluded from modifying a support award originally set by stipulation. Child support involves children‟s non-bargainable interests and is less restricted by stipulation than other dissolution matters.[106] It is important to note that when considering a modification request, the trial court must first confirm that it has proper jurisdiction over the matter under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The Court of Appeals recently ruled that neither the resignation of a foreign support order, nor the request for modification constitutes a “petition or comparable pleading” within the meaning of UIFSA.[107] A modification request may be made retroactive where the record supports a finding that a party made material misrepresentations concerning financial issues, the material misrepresentations precluded the other party from bringing a motion for modification at an earlier time, and the precluded party brought a motion for modification as soon as it was no longer precluded.[108] In the case of forgiveness of arrears, a modification request may be made retroactive “if the court expressly finds „that the party seeking modification was a recipient of . . . public assistance based upon need during the period for which retroactive modification is sought‟”. [109]

VIII. OPTIONS IN LIEU OF DIRECT CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

A. Community Service in Lieu of Child Support. If the court finds that the child support obligor earns $400 or less per month and does not have the ability to pay support based on the statutory support guidelines under the statutory relevant factors for determining support, the court may order the obligor to perform community services to fulfill the obligor‟s support obligation.[110] In ordering community services, the court must consider whether the obligor has the physical capability of performing community services and must order community services that are appropriate for the obligor‟s abilities.[111] B. Payment of Debt as Child Support. The court may order one of the parties to service the joint debts of the parties.[112] If the non-custodial parent is directed to pay certain debts as additional child support, this obligation is not terminated if the obligor subsequently discharges this debt in bankruptcy.[113]

C. Satisfaction of Support Obligation by Providing a Home. In very specific circumstances, the court may find that an obligor has satisfied his/her child support obligation by providing a home or substantial care for the child. Minn. Stat. §518.57, Subd. 3, provides in relevant part as follows: The court may conclude that an obligor has satisfied a child

support obligation by providing a home, care and support for the child while the child is living with the obligor, if the court finds that the child was integrated into the family of the obligor with the consent of the obligee and child support payments were not assigned to the public agency under section 256.74.

Such an order requires very specific findings and substantial evidence to support the court‟s ruling.[114]

IX. CHILD CARE EXPENSES

Chapter 518 provides not only for child support, but also work-related and education-related child care costs. Minn. Stat. §518.551 provides in relevant part: The court shall review the work-related and education-

related child care costs paid and shall allocate the costs to each parent in proportion to each parent‟s net income, as determined under this subdivision, after the transfer of child support and spousal maintenance, unless the allocation would be substantially unfair to either parent. There is a presumption of substantial unfairness if after the sum total of child support, spousal maintenance, and child care costs is subtracted from the non-custodial parent‟s income, the income is at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. The cost of child care for purposes of this paragraph is 75 percent of the actual cost paid for child care, to reflect the approximate value of state and federal tax credits available to the custodial parent. The actual cost paid for child care is the total amount received by the child care provider for the child or children of the obligor from the obligee or any public agency. The court shall require verification of employment or school attendance and documentation of child care expenses from the obligee and the public agency, if applicable. If child care expenses fluctuate during the year because of seasonal employment or school attendance of the obligee or extended periods of parenting time with the obligor, the court shall determine child care expenses based on an average monthly cost. The amount allocated for child care expenses is considered child support but is not subject to a cost-of-living adjustment under section 518.641. The amount allocated for child care expenses terminates when either party notifies the public authority that the child care costs have ended and without any legal action on the part of either party. The public authority shall verify the information received under this provision before authorizing termination. The termination is effective as of the date of the notification. In other cases where there is a substantial increase or decrease in child care expenses, the parties may modify the order under section 518.64.

The court may allow the non-custodial parent to care for

the child while the custodial parent is working, as provided in section 518.175, subdivision 8. Allowing the non-custodial parent to care for the child under section 518.175,

subdivision 8, is not a reason to deviate from the guidelines.[115]

A child care contribution may be automatically terminated when the custodial parent is no longer incurring child care expenses, however, the obligation does not automatically become reinstated upon resumption of the child care expenses absent a proper motion seeking reinstatement.[116]

X. LIFE INSURANCE

The trial court has the power to order an obligor of child support to obtain or maintain life insurance to secure a child support award.[117]

XI. DEPENDENT MEDICAL INSURANCE AND OTHER MEDICAL SUPPORT

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §518.171, unless the obligee has comparable or better group dependent health insurance coverage available, the court shall order the obligor to name the minor child(ren) as a beneficiary on any health and dental plan that is available to the obligor on a group basis or through an employer or union; or through a group health plan governed under ERISA and included within the definitions relating to health plans found in §§62A.011, 62A.048 or 62E.06, Subd 2.[118] If there is a cost to the obligor, this cost is deducted from net income of the obligor in determining the level of child support rather than being deducted from the child support amount calculated. Further, if dependent health and dental insurance is not available to either party on a group basis or through an employer or union, the court may require the obligor to obtain other dependent health and dental insurance and be liable for reasonable and necessary medical or dental expenses of the child or to pay no less than $50 per month to be applied to the medical and dental expenses of the children or to the cost of health insurance dependent coverage. In addition, if available health insurance does not pay all the reasonable and necessary medical or dental expenses of the child, and if the obligor has the financial ability to contribute to the payment of these medical or dental expenses, the court shall require the obligor to be liable for all or a portion of the medical or dental expenses of the child not covered by the required health or dental plan. It is important to note that medical and dental expenses include, but are not limited to, any necessary orthodontia and eye care, including prescription lenses. If the obligee is not receiving Public Assistance for the child and has the financial ability to contribute to the costs of medical and dental expenses for the child, including the cost of insurance, the court shall order the obligee and obligor to each assume a portion of these expenses based on their proportionate share of total income as defined in §518.54, Subd. 6.[119]

Medical Assistance and/or Minnesota Care are NOT insurance. They are forms of public assistance. [120]

XII. QUALIFIED MEDICAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS

The Federal Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to authorize the use of Qualified Medical Child Support Orders (QMCSOs).[121] The act requires administrators of group health plans to recognize QMCSOs in much the same way that administrators of pension plans must recognize Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs).

XIII. EXPEDITED PROCESS FOR CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS

In 1998, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the expedited child support process governed by Minn. Stat. §518.5511 (1996) was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers required by Minn. Const. Rt. 3, §1.[122] The Minnesota Supreme Court later affirmed the ruling by Court of Appeals.[123] However, the federal mandate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 666, requires that states have “expedited administrative and judicial procedures. . . for establishing paternity and for establishing, modifying and enforcing support obligations.” Therefore, during the 1999 legislative session, the state legislature enacted “The Expedited Child Support Hearing Process”, which became effective July 1, 1999.[124] The Supreme Court promulgated the “Interim Expedited Child Support Process Rules,” effective July 1, 1999. There is a Supreme Court Order dated April 15, 1999, which provides that the rules apply to child support cases when child support is assigned pursuant to Minn. Stat. §256.741, Subd. 2, or when the public authority is providing services per an application for child support services. (See also Minn. Stat. §518.54). The Supreme Court promulgated final rules for the Expedited Child Support Process effective July 1, 2001. Recent amendments to those rules became effective November 1, 2003. The rules cover the scope and guidelines of the proceedings, forms, default, discovery, motion for review and appeals.

ENDNOTES

[1]

Minn. Stat. §518.551 (statutory standard for child support awards). [2]

Minn. Stat. §518.54, Subd 2. [3]

McNattin v. McNattin, 450 N.W.2d 169 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990).

[4] Jacobs v. Jacobs, 309 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 1981); In Re: J.M.K., 507 N.W.2d 459 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993);

see also, Korf v. Korf, 553 N.W.2d 706 (Minn.Ct.App. 1996). [5]

Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1986). [6]

Keil v. Keil, 390 N.W.2d 36 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). [7]

Maher v. Maher. 393 N.W.2d 190 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); Berg v. Berg, 393 N.W.2d 40 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); Cotter v. Cotter, 392 N.W.2d 274 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); Kuchenmeister v. Kuchenmeister, 414 N.W.2d 538 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987) (child support order was remanded because trial court did not make findings on 2 relevant factors and record was silent on those factors); Lewis v. Lewis, 410 N.W.2d 88 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987) (trial court failed to find that substantial change in circumstances made original support order unreasonable and unfair so as to justify modification of order, but such finding was held to be “inherent” in record).

[8]

State v. Hall, 418 N.W.2d 187 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988); Joneja v. Joneja, 422 N.W.2d 306 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988); Thompson v. Newman, 383 N.W.2d 713 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); McNulty v. McNulty, 495 N.W.2d 471 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993) (the findings made by the trial court and cited approvingly by the court of appeals for justifying an upward departure from the guidelines including the following: (1) the child‟s private high school education and extracurricular activities required “significant economic resources”; (2) the obligor had voluntarily financially supported these activities; (3) the child‟s expenses were $2,000 per month; (4) the obligee was unemployed and had been so for ten years; (5) the obligor made almost $159,000 the previous year; (6) the obligor claimed he spent over $1,800 to support the child; (7) the child‟s standard of living over the years exceeded the presumptive child support guideline amount; (8) the child would have enjoyed her accustomed standard of living had the parties remained married; and (9) the departure from the guidelines was in the child‟s best interests).

[9]

Rogers v. Rogers, 622 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. 2001). [10]

Nolte v. Mehrens, 648 N.W.2d 727 (Minn.Ct.App. 2002). [11]

Ver Kuilen v. Ver Kuilen, 578 N.W.2d 790 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998); County of Washington v. Kusilek and Johnson, No. CX-96-800, 1997 WL 3389 (Minn.Ct.App. Jan. 7, 1977).

[12]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(c); Bjorke v. Bjorke, 354 N.W.2d 107 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). [13]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(c); Novick v. Novick, 366 N.W.2d 330 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985) (downward departure from support guidelines was justified where custodian received substantial cash and investment in property award).

[14]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(c), Letourneau v. Letourneau, 350 N.W.2d 476 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) (award setting support below guidelines and based on difference between custodial parent‟s income and expenses was reversed because purpose of support is to allow children to enjoy same standard of living as if dissolution had not occurred).

[15]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(c), Bunge v. Zachman, 578 N.W.2d 387 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998) (upward departure from guidelines denied because mother of allegedly medically fragile child failed to provide support for her claim that her $817 monthly child care costs were significantly greater than that required for a healthy child, nor did she provide any evidence as to whether the child care provider‟s tasks included any extraordinary procedures).

[16]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(c). [17]

Id; Goar v. Goar, 368 N.W.2d 348 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985) (downward departure from guidelines was upheld where obligor made less than obligee and was unable to pay more and children‟s needs

were adequately met); Black v. Bitker, 368 N.W.2d 302 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985) (downward departure from guidelines was justified where obligor was investing in new business and had limited cash flow).

[18]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(a)(1); Mentzos v. Mentzos, 353 N.W.2d 683 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) (order requiring unemployed person to pay child support was reversed and remanded because trial court made no findings that individual was capable of employment or of paying amount).

[19]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(c); Bakke v. Bakke, 351 N.W.2d 387 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) (order for support below guidelines based on obligor‟s high living expenses was reversed where expenses included payments on non-homestead real estate, private debts, snowmobile and boat licenses, and entertainment).

[20]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(c). [21]

Id; Packer v. Holm, 364 N.W.2d 506 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985) (trial court properly considered defendant‟s prior obligation to support child from prior marriage).

[22]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(b)(5). [23]

LaValle v. LaValle, 430 N.W.2d 224 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988) (reservation of wife‟s child support obligation was appropriate where her net income was less than $400 per month).

[24]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(b). [25]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(d). [26]

Svenningsen v. Svenningsen, 641 N.W.2d 614 (Minn.Ct.App. 2002) (the duration of a departure from the child support guidelines based on private debts is limited to 18 months).

[27]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(b)(1) and (2). [28]

Sward v. Sward, 410 N.W.2d 442 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987). [29]

Dinwiddie v. Dinwiddie, 379 N.W.2d 227, 229 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985); Lenz v. Wergin, 408 N.W.2d 873, 876 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987). But see Williams v. Williams, 635 N.W.2d 99 (Minn.Ct.App. 2001) (obligor held not in arrears for failure to pay child support from income tax refunds where there was no evidence or allegation that obligor was over withholding income taxes for purposes of decreasing his income for child support).

[30]

Preussner v. Timmer, 414 N.W.2d 577 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987); Martin v. Martin, 364 N.W.2d 475 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985); Freking v. Freking, 479 N.W.2d 736 (Minn.Ct.App. 1992)

[31]

Holmberg v. Holmberg, 578 N.W.2d 817 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998) (a disabled child support obligor is entitled to a credit for social security disability benefits paid on behalf of a child for whom the obligor has a duty of support). Note – this case overrules Haynes v. Haynes, 343 N.W.2d 679 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) and other contrary cases. Also, see Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5 (l).

[32]

Swanson v. Swanson, 583 N.W.2d 15 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998); Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S.Ct. 2029 (1987); see, Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(c)(1).

[33]

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115 (Minn.Ct.App. 2001). [34]

Erler v. Erler, 390 N.W.2d 316 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). [35]

Weihe v. Hendley, 389 N.W.2d 754 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); Minn. Stat. §518.54, Subd. 6.

[36]

Quaid v. Quaid, 403 N.W.2d 904 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987). [37]

Bates v. Bates, 404 N.W.2d 817 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987); County of Nicollett v. Haakenson, 497 N.W.2d 611 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993).

[38]

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115 (Minn.Ct.App. 2001). [39]

Thompson v. Newman, 383 N.W.2d 713 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). [40]

Potocnik v. Potocnik, 361 N.W.2d 414 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985); Covington v. Markes, 366 N.W.2d 692 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985).

[41]

Montague v. Montague, No. C9-89-1384, 1989 WL 148230 (Minn.Ct.App. Dec. 15, 1989); see also, Itasca County Human Services and Lorin Anderson v. Eugene Ferweda, No. C6-96-1569, 1997 WL 147436 (Minn.Ct.App. Apr. 1, 1997); and Rudnik v. Helm, No. C8-96-1783, 1997 WL 118114 (Minn.Ct.App. March 18, 1997).

[42]

Sherburn County v. Riedle, 481 N.W.2d 111 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). [43]

Herrley v. Herrley, 452 N.W.2d 711 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990); Martin v. Martin, No. C9-96-688, 1996 WL 679711 (Minn.Ct.App. Nov. 26, 1996).

[44]

State, County of Swift ex rel. Grothe v. Grothe, No. C8-92-1998, 1993 WL 121245 (Minn.Ct.App. Apr. 20, 1993).

[45]

Strauch v. Strauch, 401 N.W.2d 444 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987); Carver County Community Soc. Serv. v. Fritzke, 392 N.W.2d 290 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); Justis v. Justis, 384 N.W.2d 885 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); Margeson v. Margeson, 376 N.W.2d 269 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985).

[46]

Erler v. Erler, 390 N.W.2d 316 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). [47]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(a). [48]

Johnson v. Fritz, 406 N.W.2d 614 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987). [49]

Barnier v. Wells, 476 N.W.2d 795, 797 (Minn.Ct.App. 1991) (where obligor failed to disclose his receipt of $833 per month from his father and $15,000 per year from his grandmother, trial court‟s denial of obligee‟s modification motion was reversed and remanded to determine (1) reasonable way for obligor to report gift income; (2) portion of gifts to be used for child support; and (3) method of payment).

[50]

Barnier, 476 N.W.2d 795. [51]

Rooney v. Rooney, 669 NW2d 362 (Minn.Ct.App. 2003). [52]

Minn. Stat. §518.57, Subd. 2. [53]

Strandberg v. Strandberg, 664 N.W.2d 887 (Minn.Ct.App. 2003). [54]

Resch v. Resch, 381 N.W.2d 460, 462 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). [55]

Ronay v. Ronay, 369 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985). [56]

Murphy v. Murphy, 574 N.W.2d 77 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998). [57]

Id.

[58]

Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235 (Minn.Ct.App. 2003). [59]

Veit v. Veit, 413 N.W.2d 601, 605 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987); Rohrman v. Moore, 423 N.W.2d 717 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988).

[60]

Romig v. Palodichuk, No. C8-96-1556, 1997 WL 65516 (Minn.Ct.App. Feb. 18, 1997). [61]

Justis v. Justis, 384 N.W.2d 885, 891 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 1986).

[62]

Darcy v. Darcy, 455 N.W.2d 518 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990). [63]

Erickson v. Erickson, 385 N.W.2d 301, 304 (Minn. 1986). [64]

Wildtraut v. Wildtraut, 391 N.W.2d 550, 551 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). [65]

Scearcy v. Mercado, 410 N.W.2d 43 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987). [66]

Ramsey County v. Faulhaber, 399 N.W.2d 617 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987). [67]

Mancuso v. Mancuso, 417 N.W.2d 668 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988). [68]

D‟Heilly v. Gunderson, 428 N.W.2d 133 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988). [69]

Hayes v. Hayes, 473 N.W.2d 364 (Minn.Ct.App. 1991). [70]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5f. [71]

In re the Paternity of J.M.V. and R.R.V., 656 N.W.2d 558 (Minn.Ct.App. 2003). [72]

Id. [73]

Hayes v. Hayes, 473 N.W.2d 364 (Minn.Ct.App. 1991). [74]

Meyer v. Meyer, 346 N.W.2d 369, 372 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). [75]

McKay v. McKay, No. C5-90-1663, 1991 WL 15364 (Minn.Ct.App. Feb. 12, 1991). [76]

Bliss v. Bliss, 493 N.W.2d 583 (Minn.Ct.App. 1992) (order reducing obligor‟s support obligation by half during annual nine-week visitation period was remanded because of trial court‟s failure to make findings justifying reduced support).

[77]

Kleinhuizen v. Kleinhuizen, 354 N.W.2d 588 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). [78]

McCarthy v. McCarthy, 301 Minn. 270, 222 N.W.2d 331 (1974); Rutherford v. Rutherford, No. C7-94-1351, 1994 WL 678461 (Minn.Ct.App. Dec. 6, 1994) rev. denied Feb. 3, 1995.

[79]

King v. Braden, 418 N.W.2d 739, 741 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988), citing Minn. Rules 9500.2060, Subp. 46; In Re Fiihr, 184, N.W.2d 22 (Minn. 1971). See also, Seidel v. Seidel, No. C9-93-1096, 1993 WL 536101 (Minn.Ct.App. Dec. 28, 1993); O‟Keefe v. O‟Keefe, No. C6-97-2165, 1998 WL 170117 (Minn.Ct.App. Apr. 14, 1998).

[80]

Minn. Stat. §518.64, Subd. 4a. [81]

Minn. Stat. 518.64, Subd. 4.

[82]

Id. [83]

In Re Welfare of Alle, 230 N.W.2d 574 (Minn. 1975). [84]

Valento v. Valento, 385 N.W.2d 860 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). [85]

Veit v. Veit, 413 N.W.2d 601 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987). [86]

Broas v. Broas, 472 N.W.2d 671 (Minn.Ct.App. 1991). [87]

Minn. Stat. §518.17, Subd. 6. [88]

Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1988). [89]

Bender v. Bender, 671 N.W.2d 602 (Minn.Ct.App. 2003). [90]

Minn. Stat. §518.612; State ex rel. Southwell v. Chamberland, 361 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1985) (although custodial parent concealed child‟s location from non-custodial parent and improperly removed child from state, non-custodial parent was liable for all child support arrearages under dissolution decree); County of Hennepin on Behalf of Johnson v. Boyle, 450 N.W.2d 187 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990) (trial court‟s suspension of obligor‟s duty to pay ongoing support under Minn. Stat. §256.87, Subd. 1a, was reversed because it was based on obligee‟s systematic interference with obligor‟s visitation rights; it was held that Minn. Stat. §518.612 precludes interference with visitation rights as a defense to non-payment of support).

[91]

Minn. Stat. §518.612. [92]

Minn. Stat. §518.641, Subd. 1. [93]

McClenahan v. Warner, 461 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990). [94]

Id. [95]

Id; Kerr v. Kerr, 309 Minn. 124, 243 N.W.2d 313 (1976); Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 208 N.W.2d 734 (1973); Holmberg v. Holmberg, 578 N.W.2d 817 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998) (In determining whether a lien on a homestead created by an ambiguous provision in a dissolution judgment may be modified, the district court must determine whether the lien is part of the property division or in the nature of child support, as only a lien in the nature of child support may be modified if changed circumstances render it unreasonable and unfair. This issue was not addressed in the Supreme Court Holmberg, supra decision).

[96]

Minn. Stat. §518.64, Subd 2(a); Blomgren v. Blomgren, 367 N.W.2d 918 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985) (denial of motion to increase child support was remanded where court failed to make findings); Haiman v. Haiman, 363 N.W.2d 335 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985); see Derence v. Derence, 363 N.W.2d 86 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985).

[97]

Guyer v. Guyer, 587 N.W.2d 856 (Minn.Ct.App. 1999) (Court of Appeals upheld trial courts order requiring obligor to disclose financial records of a closely-held family corporation, in order to ensure consideration of all income information relevant to determination of obligee‟s modification request).

[98]

Dulian v. Dulian, No. C9-96-1212, 1997 WL 30645 (Minn.Ct.App. Jan. 28, 1997). [99]

Welsh v. Welsh, 446 N.W.2d 191 (Minn.Ct.App. 1989) (32% wage increase by obligor justified increase in support amount, especially where cost of living and cost of raising older children caused increased need of children and obligee); Daily v. Daily, 433 N.W.2d 152 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988)

(increase in husband‟s support obligation was reversed; $2,234 wage increase over 7 years was not “substantial”, particularly where cost of living over same period rose at higher rate); Price v. Price, 390 N.W.2d 483 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986) (it was abuse of discretion not to find substantial change in circumstances where obligor‟s income had increased 70%); Blomgren v. Blomgren, 386 N.W.2d 378 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986) (obligor‟s wage increase from $10,000 to $250,000 made original $90 per month support obligation unreasonable and unfair as a matter of law; Maxson v. Derence, 384 N.W.2d 583 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986) (wage increase from $11,000 to $16,000 per year was substantial); Hoppenrath v. Collins, 383 N.W.2d 394 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986) (obligor‟s wage increase of 86% made original order unreasonable and unfair even though needs of children and mother had not changed; children were entitled to share in benefit of wage increase); Prebil v. Juergens, 378 N.W.2d 652 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985) (it was apparent from record that obligor‟s 34% wage increase made original order unfair); Thielbar v. Defiel, 378 N.W.2d 643 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985) (obligor‟s substantial increase in income alone was insufficient to justify increase in support where there was no finding that original order was unfair given lack of evidence regarding increased child care expenses or increased needs of child).

[100]

Erickson v. Erickson, 385 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. 1986); Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1986); Galman v. Galman, 387 N.W.2d 680 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); Bodmer v. Pattie, 383 N.W.2d 14 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986).

[101]

Minn. Stat. §518.64, Subd. 2(a) (this provision is intended to conform to federal regulations). [102]

Bock v. Bock, 506 N.W.2d 321 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993). [103]

Id. [104]

Kammueller v. Kammueller, 2003 WL 22999277 (Minn.Ct.App. 2003) [105]

Id; Minn. Stat. §518.64, Subd. 2(e). [106]

Polk County Social Servs. on Behalf of Hagen v. Clinton, 459 N.W.2d 362 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990). [107]

Kasden v. Berney, 587 N.W.2d 319 (Minn.Ct.App. 1999). [108]

Gully v. Gully, 599 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1999). [109]

Long v. Creighton, 670 N.W.2d 621, 627 (Minn.Ct.App. 2003), citing Minn. Stat. §518.64, Subd 2(d). [110]

Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd 5a. [111]

Id. [112]

Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47 (Minn. 1984) (order requiring husband to pay child support, awarding homestead to wife, and requiring husband to pay one-half of house payments and pay $950 on bills and $750 on wife‟s attorneys‟ fees was upheld given fact that husband had net monthly income of $12,000 and wife had net monthly income of $225); Jones v. Jones, 300 Minn. 1982, 220 N.W.2d 287 (1974).

[113]

Jones v. Jones, 300 Minn. 182, 220 N.W.2d 287 (1974); Coakley v. Coakley, 400 N.W.2d 436 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987) (obligor‟s debts for obligee‟s mortgage and attorneys‟ fees were not dischargeable because they were “in the nature of support”).

[114]

Ver Kuilen v. Ver Kuilen, 578 N.W.2d 790 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998) (obligor facing public assistance reimbursement proceeding was entitled to calculation of a cross-award reduction in support for percentage of care for daughter directly furnished by him in his home).

[115] Minn. Stat. §518.551, Subd. 5(b).

[116]

Klingenschmitt v. Klingenschmitt, 580 N.W.2d 512 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998). [117]

Arundel v. Arundel, 281 N.W.2d 663 (Minn. 1979); Thiebault v. Thiebault, 421 N.W.2d 747 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988).

[118]

Minn. Stat. §518.171, Subd. 1(a). [119]

Minn. Stat. §518.171. [120]

Erickson v. Fullerton and Health Partners obo Minnesota Care, 619 N.W.2d 204 (Minn.App. 2000); In Re the Marriage of Hendricks, n/k/a Charles v. Hendricks, C2-02-2101, C2-02-2132 (August 12, 2003) (Minn.App. 2003).

[121]

29 U.S.C. §4301. [122]

Holmberg v. Holmberg, 578 N.W.2d 817 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998). [123]

Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1999). [124]

Minn. Stat. §484.702 (1999).