 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kremer v. Kremer12/11/2001
The judgment dissolving the parties' marriage provides for joint legal and physical custody of the children, but does not require either party to pay child support . Appellant-father argues that the district court's failure to order payment of child support by respondent-mother is a deviation from the child-support guidelines and that the district court erred by failing to make findings adequate to justify that deviation. Because the district court's findings are sufficient to explain its deviation from the guidelines, we affirm.
FACTS
After two years of marriage, appellant-father Anthony Scott Kremer and respondent-mother Patrinella Ann Kremer separated and mother moved out. Approximately six months after their separation, father obtained a default judgment that granted father sole physical custody of the parties' minor children and ordered mother to pay child support of $358.38 per month. Three months later, the district court granted mother's motion to vacate the default judgment based on its finding that father had committed fraud on the court.
When the district court revisited the questions of custody and child support , it concluded that the children's interests would be best served by granting the parties joint physical and legal custody of the children. The district court adopted a custody plan that provides that the children stay with father during the school year and with mother during winter, spring and summer school vacations; divides holidays equally; and provides alternate-weekend visitation to each party during the time she/he does not have primary custody.
The district court recognized that the Hortis/Valento formula requires mother to pay father $184.23 per month for the support of the minor children. However, noting the parties' limited resources, the district court determined that such a requirement would work a financial hardship on mother based on her annual income of less than $17,000, particularly during the times of year when the children would be with her. The district court, accordingly, deviated from the Hortis-Valento formula, imposed no child-support obligation on mother, and provided father with the benefit of the tax exemptions for the children. Father appeals the district court's determination that mother need not pay child support .
DECISION
Father argues that the district court's findings are insufficient to support its deviation from the child-support guidelines.
A district court has broad discretion to provide for the support of the parties' children. Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn. 1984). The district court abuses its discretion when it establishes child support in a manner that is against logic and the facts on record. Id. In cases such as the present one, where the parties share joint physical custody,
pplication of the Hortis/Valento formula * * * is an application of the guidelines. Under that formula, the guideline child support amount is the amount indicated by the guidelines, but only for the periods of time that the other parent has actual custody of the children. Schlichting v. Paulus, 632 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn. App. 2001).
The district court may deviate from the guidelines only if it determines that deviation is needed to serve the children's best interests and if the deviation is supported by the statutorily required findings. Rogers v. Rogers, 622 N.W.2d 813, 819 (Minn. 2001); Schlichting, 632 N.W.2d at 793.
When a district court deviates from the guidelines it must
make written findings giving the amount of support calculated under the guidelines, the reasons for the deviation, and shall specificall
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|