Minnesota Divorce & Family Law Blog : Minneapolis Divorce Attorney & Lawyer : Minnesota Family Law Firm : Brown Law Offices : St. Paul, Twin Cities MN Custody Child Support

In January of 2007 the Minnesota child support guidelines underwent significant changes. Prior to the enactment of the present legislation found in Minnesota Statutes Section 518A, child support was based soley on the income of the obligor (the paying parent). Today, child support is based upon the relative income of both the obligor and obligee (the receiving parent), taking into account the nature of the physical custody of the minor children of the parties. The intent of the legislature was to enact guidelines that strike a balance in the income of each parent, the time each parent spends with the children and expenses non-custodial parents incur during their parenting time.

Child support involves three types of financial contribution: (1) basic support; (2) medical expenses; and (3) child care costs. Basic support is a monthly cash payment made from one parent to another for the support of the children. Medical support involves the payment of insurance premiums and uninsured expenses. Child care costs involve all work or education-related child care expenses incurred by the parents of a child.

The PICS (percentage of income for child support) of each parent is critical to determining how much support will change hands. The guidelines call for the Court to combine the gross (pre-tax) income of each parent and assign a relative percentage of the combined income to each. Once determined, this percentage (or PICS) is multiplied against the total support figure listed in the guidelines to determine how much basic support must change hands. A non-custodial parent receives a credit against the amount of support to be paid based upon the amount of parenting time they exercise. That same PICS is applied to the actual cost of health premiums, uninsured expenses and daycare to appropriately allocate the obligations of each parent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Judge Halbrooks has been busy at the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She recently issued three dissolution decisions, none of which were published. Two cases involved property allocation issues, one involved a joint physical custody award and two involved child support calculations:

• Popel v. Popel: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint physical custody to the parties but remanded for a recalculation of child support and reallocation of non-marital interests.
• Blaeser v. Fiscus: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Halbrooks opined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to modify child support following the emancipation of appellant's oldest child. 
• Murphy v. Murphy: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished)  Judge Halbrooks found no error in the district court's unequal allocation of marital property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently rendered three family law decisions, none of which warranted publication. One case involved child support issues, another custody and child support and the third property valuation and division:

• Donovan v. Donovan: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Shumaker held that a child support bonus provision was unambiguous and that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable to child support cases.
• Adler v. Espinosa: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Judge Lansing opined that the district court appropriately determined physical custody and child support obligation.
• McCormick v. McCormick: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished)  Judge Halbrooks found no error in district court's valuation of real estate and denial of fee award, but reversed district court's award of 100% of the marital equity in the homestead to wife.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Three family law appellate decisions for review this week: one adoption opinion from the Minnesota Supreme Court, one published interstate child support opinion from the Court of Appeals and one unpublished divorce opinion from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

• C.O. v. Doe: Minnesota Supreme Court. Justice Page held that due process required an evidentiary hearing to take place before termination of adoption contract.
• In re the Welfare of S.R.S.: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Published). Judge Klaphake opined that Minnesota courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify father's child support obligation.
• Baumgartner v. Baumgartner: Minnesota Court of Appeals (Unpublished). Chief Judge Toussaint found no abuse of discretion in disproportionate award of marital property and no error in valuation of marital property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We've posted a number of entries concerning the benefits of settling a divorce as opposed to litigation. Even if you need to litigate, more than 95% of cases will settle before trial.

The following settlement checklist will come in handy as you attempt to figure out if you've got all of your bases covered:

1. Legal Custody: Joint or sole legal custody?
2. Physical Custody: Joint or sole physical custody?
3. Routine Access Schedule: Where will the children be on a given day?
4. Vacation Access Schedule: How many weeks of uninterrupted vacation time with the children?
5. Holiday Access Schedule: Who do the children celebrate with in a given year?
6. School-Year Breaks: Where will the children spend spring break or President's Day, for example?
7. Telephone Contact: What are the rules concerning communication with the children by phone?
8. Transportation: Who will transport the children for parenting time exchanges?
9. Basic Child Support: What is the amount of guideline support to be paid?
10. Medical/Dental Child Support: Who will insure the children and how will uninsured costs be allocated?
11. Child Care Support: How much will each parent pay for daycare?
12. Security for Support: Should one or both parents secure life insurance, naming the other as beneficiary for the benefit of the children?
13. Income Tax Exemptions: Who claims the children on their income taxes?
14. Spousal Maintenance/Alimony: How much and for how long?
15. Medical Insurance: Will each party cover their own?
16. Marital Property: What is a fair and equitable way to value and divide marital property?
17. Non-Marital Property: Does the holder of a non-marital interest retain that interest?
18. Pre-Separation Debts: How is the marital debt divided?
19. Post-Separation Debts: How are debts accrued after separation divided?
20. Fees and Costs: Will one party pay, or each responsible for their own attorney fees and costs?
21. Name Change: Does either spouse wish to change their name?
22. Ongoing Conflicts: Will the parties agree to mediate or use a parenting time consultant if future problems arise?
23. Documents: Do each agree to execute all paperwork necessary to transfer property interests?
24. Non-Disclosure: Does the court retain the ability to re-open the case if it is revealed that one party has hidden assets from the other?

Naturally, there are many other issues that will need to be addressed, but the 24 items listed above will give you a general framework for discussion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently published an article about the Minnesota child support guidelines that were amended as of January 1, 2007. Seems no one is happy with what was sold as a more equitable approach to calculating child support, despite the legislature's goal of reducing acrimony among split parents.

Reporter Jean Hopfensperger provides examples of mothers who are upset about the reduction in support received and writes that that "Fathers' rights groups say orders still are set too high and the formula is based on unrealistic child-rearing expenses."  

Unlike the old child support guidelines that looked only at the net income of the paying parent, the new guidelines examine the gross income of both parents and divides support based upon their relative incomes - like most other states. Hopfensperger says that with the sagging economy, more parents are seeking to re-open the issue and see if they can increase the amount received or decrease the amount paid. Many are shocked to learn that the opposite will result. 

If you are interested, you can access the Minnesota Child Support Calculator found at the Minnesota Department of Human Services web site to determine updated support amounts in your situation. Keep in mind that a "substantial" change in circumstance must present itself - meaning that under the new guidelines the difference paid or received per month must be at least 20% of the prior obligation and total more than $75.00.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many couples question whether they can deviate from the Minnesota child support guidelines by agreement. While the court ultimately has discretion to do so, it does not happen very ofte. In fact, we've had orders kicked back because our stipulated support calculation was off by as little as $5.00 per month. Courts consider child support the "child's money," and, as a result, rarely afford parents the ability to unilaterally negotiate a different figure.

At the same time, however, we have successfully persuaded the courts to deviate. In considering a deviation from the child support guidelines, the court will examine factors such as:

• Earnings, income and resources of the parties;
• Financial needs and resources of the child;
• Physical and emotional needs of the child;
• Educational needs of the child;
• Standard of living the child would enjoy in the absence of divorce;
• Tax implications associated with the child's dependency exemption;
• Debts of the parties; and
• Receipt of public assistance.

If the court deems appropriate, it may order or permit a child support obligation greater than, or less than, the Minnesota child support support guidelines. Still, the odds are against.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The court will "impute" income if your spouse is voluntarily underemployed. Rest assured, you have nothing to fear.

Let's suppose your spouse is trained as a physician and decides, for the time being, to work as a waiter at a local restaurant. The court can take an individual's education, work history, job opportunities in the local market and earnings associated with those jobs into account in calculating appropriate child or spousal support. Assuming your spouse is reasonably assured of obtaining a position as a doctor with a six-figure salary, a doctor's salary will be attributed to them.

One of the more common discussions we have with new clients involves a spouse's claim (with laughter) that they will quit their job and our client will receive nothing. "I'll quit my job" they say. Wrong strategy. Your spouse is free to work in whatever capacity they wish. At the end of the day, however, the amount of support they pay is based on what they actually earn or have the potential to earn, whichever is greater. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Following the entry of a child support order, the recipient of support has the option of receiving payment directly from the payor or through collection by the county child support office. Most recipients find the services offered by their local child support collection agency very beneficial. Child support officers not only collect monthly support payments through wage withholding, but they also pursue unpaid support (arrears) with the assistance of the county attorney.

The Minnesota Department of Human Services has established a link to every child support office in the State of Minnesota. Visit the link here to obtain contact information about the child support office in your county.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Minnesota Judicial Branch has published an exceptional brochure entitled "From the Judges of Family Court: What to Expect...Divorce in Minnesota." In reviewing, it appears to serve as a "reality check" for the litigants. Much of it I endorse. Here is some of what the Court has to say:

A divorce can be a painful and difficult experience, but if you understand the functions and limitations of the legal system, the process becomes less frustrating. It is our hope, as Judges of Family Court, that this pamphlet will give you a better understanding of the process, and help you get through your divorce with realistic ideas and goals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a proceeding for an OFP under the Domestic Abuse Act, the court may provide the following relief, upon notice and hearing:

• Restrain the abusing party from committing acts of domestic abuse;
• Exclude the abusing party from the dwelling which the parties share or from the residence of the petitioner;
• Exclude the abusing party from a reasonable area surrounding the dwelling or residences
• Award temporary custody or establish temporary visitation with regard to minor children of the parties on a basis which gives primary consideration to the safety of the victim and the children;
• Establish temporary support for minor children or a spouse and order the withholding of support from the income of the person obligated to pay the support;
• Upon request of the petitioner, provide counseling or other social services for the parties, if married, or if there are minor children;
• Order the abusing party to participate in treatment or counseling services;
• Award temporary use and possession of property and make other orders regarding property;
• Exclude the abusing party from the place of employment of the petitioner or otherwise limit the abusing party’s access to the petitioner at the petitioner’s place of employment;
• Order the abusing party to pay restitution to the petitioner;
• Order the continuance of all currently available insurance coverage without change in coverage or beneficiary designation; or
• Order, in its discretion, other relief it deems necessary for the protection of a family or household member, including orders or directives to the sheriff or constable.

Relief that is granted by the order is for a fixed period of time, not to exceed one year, except when the court determines a longer fixed period is appropriate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks