Opinion
A20-0153
03-04-2021
In re the Marriage of: Adenach Feyyissa Kenea, petitioner, Respondent, v. Amsalu Gobena Negera, Appellant.
ORDER OPINION
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-18-1632 Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge. BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant and respondent divorced in July 2019. The district court entered a judgment and decree dissolving the marriage consistent with an agreement between the parties.
2. In November 2019, the district court heard arguments on several motions made by both parties. Appellant filed a motion to modify custody and parenting time and a motion to modify child support. The district court denied the motion to modify custody and parenting time, holding that "there is no finding of endangerment to the minor children. . ." as required by Minn. Stat. § 518.18 (a), (c), (d) (2018). The district court also denied the motion to modify child support, finding that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances as required by Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2 (2018).
3. "Appellate review of custody determinations is limited to whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law." Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705, 710 (Minn. 1985).
4. When a party moves for modification within one year of entry of the judgment and decree, Minnesota law imposes an additional, preliminary burden before the motion will be considered. Minn. Stat. § 518.18(a) provides that "no motion to modify a custody order or parenting plan may be made earlier than one year after the date of the entry of a decree of dissolution or legal separation containing a provision dealing with custody, except in accordance with paragraph (c)." Paragraph (c) states that the two-year time limitation
shall not prohibit a motion to modify a custody order or parenting plan if the court finds that there is persistent and willful denial or interference with parenting time, or has reason to believe that the child's present environment may endanger the child's physical or emotional health or impair the child's emotional development.
5. Only after meeting the requirements of § 518.18(c) (2018) does the court then move on to determine whether a party has made a prima facie case as to the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d). This court has held that, although a movant might allege that the children were endangered in the other parent's care, he might still fail to provide the district court with a reason to believe that the children's present environment endangers their physical or emotional health or development. Medvedovski v. Medvedovski, 903 N.W.2d 646, 650 (Minn. App. 2017). In that situation, the movant does not meet the requirements of § 518.18(c), and is not entitled to consideration under Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d). Id. at 649-50.
6. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d), the court may modify custody if:
[T]he court finds that the child has been integrated into the [moving party's home] with the consent of the other party [and/or] the child's present environment endangers the child's physical or emotional health or impairs the child's emotional development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child.
7. The district court made several findings of fact which support the conclusion that the children are not endangered in their present home. The record supports this conclusion. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion to modify custody or parenting time.
8. Whether to modify child support is within the broad discretion of the district court. Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. App. 2017); see Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703, 708 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating that, "[g]enerally, [appellate courts] review orders modifying child support for abuse of discretion"). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is based on a misapplication of the law, is contrary to the facts, or is contrary to logic. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d at 77.
9. The district court calculated the child-support obligation using the required statutory formula - the parental income for determining child support - based on the parties' stipulation as to each of their incomes.
10. Modification of a child-support order is governed by Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2. The statute permits modification upon a showing of any one of eight factors which makes the terms of the existing order unreasonable or unfair. These factors include:
a. Substantially increased or decreased gross income of an obligor or obligee;
b. Substantially increased or decreased need of an obligor or obligee or the child or children that are the subject of these proceedings;
c. Receipt of assistance under the AFDC program. . .;
d. A change in the cost of living for either party as measured by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics;
e. Extraordinary medical expenses of the child not provided for under section 518A.41;
f. A change in the availability of appropriate health care coverage or a substantial increase or decrease in health care coverage costs;
g. The addition 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; or
h. Upon the emancipation of the child, as provided in subdivision 5.
11. The district court denied appellant's motion to modify child support because there was not a substantial change in circumstances pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2 that would warrant modification. Appellant acknowledged to the district court and to this court that his income is the same as when the child support was first calculated. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion to modify child support.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: March 4, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Francis J. Connolly