The Minnesota Court of Appeals has issued a new decision in the case of Marriage of Jarvinen related to a father’s motion for modification of child-care expenses.
In the opinion, the appellate court found that the Hennepin County District Court had erred when it determined that it did not have the authority to retroactively modify a child-care order.
The father appealed the district court’s holding, arguing that Minnesota Statute § 518A.39, subd. 7 (2010) specifically permits a district court to retroactively modify a child-care order.
The father argued that because his former wife failed to provide any evidence of child-care expenses were actually incurred by her after November of 2009, the Hennepin County District Court erred by failing to retroactively eliminate his child-care obligation for the year of December 2009 through November of 2010.
The district court cited Minn. Stat. § 518A.39,subd. 2(e) (2010) as authority which prohibited the court from considering the father’s request.
The appeals court agreed with the father.
The appeals court stated that “the terms of a child-support order may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances that makes the terms of the previous support order unreasonable and unfair.” Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd.2(a) (2010)).
Additionally, the appeals court stated that the more recent law of Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 7 (2010) requires that “child care support must be based on the actual child care expenses. The court may provide that a decrease in the amount of the child care based on a decrease in the actual child care expenses is effective as of the date the expense is decreased.”
Under the appeals court ruling in this case, a district court in Minnesota is permitted to look beyond the date of the filing of the motion for child-care modification when considering whether to grant retroactive relief. Thus, the Hennepin County District court erred when it failed to consider any evidence on the issue.
The appeals court remanded the case on the sole issue of retroactive modification of child-care expenses and asked the district court to hear the same.
See Marriage of Jarvinen, A11-1627 (2012).
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I’ve
truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your
rss feed and I hope you write again soon!
Hmmm it seems like ylur website ate my ffirst
comment (it wass sper long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I
submitted and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I too am
an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to everything.
Do you have any recommendations for rookie blog writers?
I’d definitely appreciate it.