Legal Question in Family Law in Minnesota
Can someone clarify these for me? Do these make sense?
1. The order requiring you to pay for insurance and pay add'l $95 per month for public insurance: 518A.41 subd1(d) says you can be required to provide coverage OR contribute to the cost of public coverage. I read that to say you cannot be required to pay for two different insurance policies. Medical assistance is absolutely defined as "public coverage" under 518A.41 subd1(f)
2.Daycare is apportionable under 518A.40. However, only "work related or education related" daycare costs are apportionable. Under subd 3 of that statute, the courtmust require a person to provide verification of employment or school attendance. In your case, the court did not do so. That is appealable
3. You cannot argue that the court should impute income to her because she is claiming a "mental incapacity" under 518A.32 subd 3(3). However, if I were you I would argue the court should order her to apply for Social Security Disability (either form whether SSDI - or SSD) and that the court should reflect that you raise the child half the time and cannot afford to provide for your child if you are ordered to pay child support as if you are a noncustodial parent. I would argue that because she should be able to qualify for social security, the court should deviate your amount of child support under 518A.43.
1 Answer from Attorneys
I am not sure what you are asking about precisely since the information you include is fairly broad and requires a review of your order. That notwithstanding, A Judge has broad discretion in crafting orders. They are appealable only if the Judge exceeds that discretion or if the order is not supported by the evidence.
An order generally require a party to provide or contribute to the cost of medical insurance related to the child's coverage and divide uninsured medical expenses based on child support guidelines. It would be unusual to provide insurance and contribute to medical assistance. A review would be required.
Minnesota statutes allow for a division of child care related to the custodial parent's work or school. There is nothing that requires proof of those expenses under the statute but presumably the Court must have some evidence to support its decision or it becomes potentially appealable.
You may aways argue for imputed income. However, if the other party is recognized as disabled under federal law, absent some compelling evidence to the contrary, a State court cannot and will not usurp a federal determination in that regard. If the other parent is unable to work, she should certainly apply for SSDI where money would be provided to the children as well based on the parental disability.
For a consultation call 612.240.8005.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
