Hansen v. Todnem

• Citation: 891 N.W.2d 51
• Decision Date: 13 February 2017
• Docket Number: A16-0698
• Parties: In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin HANSEN, petitioner, Appellant, v. Suzanne Christine TODNEM, Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota

891 N.W.2d 51

In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin HANSEN, petitioner, Appellant,

v.Suzanne Christine TODNEM, Respondent.

A16-0698

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed February 13, 2017

Review Granted in Part May 16, 2017

Thomas B. James, Law Office of Thomas B. James, Cokato, Minnesota (for appellant).

Suzanne Christine Todnem, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se respondent).

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Smith, John, Judge.^*

OPINION

HOOTEN, Judge

In this dispute regarding child support, child care, and child-related tax benefits, appellant father argues that the district court (1) erred by failing to apply a $15,000 statutory cap to the parents' monthly combined PICS; (2) abused its discretion by denying appellant's request to provide in-home, before and after school child care; (3) erroneously determined that the child would be covered under respondent mother's medical insurance policy; and (4) exceeded its authority in allocating the federal dependency exemption to the parent who is not entitled to claim head of household status. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Birch Benjamin Hansen and respondent Suzanne Christine Todnem are the parents of K.T. (the child), born in 2010. The parents, who never married, separated when the child was less than two months old, resulting in Todnem becoming the child's primary caretaker. Initially, Hansen voluntarily paid Todnem $1,000 per month in basic child support, two-thirds of the child care costs, and $99.91 per month for the child's medical insurance coverage. In January 2014, Hansen petitioned for a determination of custody, parenting time, and child support. The district court issued an order awarding Todnem temporary sole legal and temporary sole physical custody and directing Hansen to continue paying the same child support obligations that he previously volunteered.

In March 2015, a custody evaluation report recommended that the district court award the parties joint legal and joint physical custody along with equal parenting time, and that the district court appoint a parenting consultant. Approximately four months later, the parties finalized a comprehensive parenting plan that mirrored the custody evaluator's recommendations and met the elements outlined in Minn. Stat. § 518.1705, subd. 2(a) (2016). The district court adopted the parenting plan, which also allowed for a parenting consultant to determine the child's elementary school for the 2015 academic year. The parenting consultant chose a school located less than one-half mile from Hansen's residence.

Within weeks of the district court's adoption of the parenting plan, disputes arose between the parties regarding child support, child care, and child-related tax benefits. The district court issued an order in October 2015, determining that the parties' combined PICS was $16,868¹ and concluding that there was no statutory cap for the PICS. Based on these determinations, the district court required Hansen to pay $424 per month in basic child support. The district court also denied Hansen's before and after school daycare request, finding that his request was not in the child's best interests. The district court found that although Hansen's monthly medical insurance costs were less than Todnem's monthly costs, Todnem's policy was preferable because her deductible was $150 while his deductible was $3,000.² The district court therefore ordered Hansen to pay $83 per month for medical support.

The district court initially allocated to each parent the right to claim all child-related tax exemptions, credits, and deductions in alternating years. But, because both parties moved to amend the district court's order, the district court amended its order to reserve the issue for resolution at an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, Hansen claimed that he was entitled to claim the child exclusively for all tax-related benefits (dependency exemption, head of household status, child tax credit, and child and dependent care credit) because the child spends an equal amount of time with both parents and Hansen has a higher adjusted gross income than Todnem. The district court disagreed with Hansen and decided that the tax benefits should be allocated between Hansen and Todnem each year. In an effort to ensure that both parents would receive some tax benefit each year, the district court ordered that the parent who did not qualify for the head of household status for a given year be entitled to claim the dependency exemption. Hansen appeals.

ISSUES

I. Did the district court err by failing to apply a $15,000 statutory cap to the parties' combined PICS in its child support calculation?

II. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Hansen's request to provide in-home child care during before and after school hours?

III. Did the district court err in determining that Todnem, rather than Hansen, maintain the child under her medical insurance policy?

IV. Did the district court err in allocating the dependency exemption to the parent who was not entitled to claim head of household status for that particular year?

ANALYSIS

I.

Hansen argues that the district court miscalculated his basic child support obligation by failing to limit the parents' combined PICS to $15,000. Generally, the district court has broad discretion in determining a parent's child support obligation. Rutten v. Rutten , 347 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn.1984). But, the district court abuses its discretion if the support obligation goes against the facts in the record or if the district court misapplies the law. Id.

In computing a parent's child support obligation, the district court combines the parents' gross monthly income to arrive at the PICS and determines each parent's percentage contribution to the combined PICS. Minn. Stat. § 518A.34 (2016). Here, the district court calculated the parents' combined PICS as $16,624 and determined that Hansen's income made up 65% of the PICS. The district court did not apply a $15,000 cap to the parents' combined PICS, explicitly finding that "there is no cap on the combined parental income under the [c]hild [s]upport [g]uidelines." The district court then limited the basic support obligation to the $1,883 statutory cap, pursuant to the child support guidelines, and adjusted Hansen's obligation to account for his equal parenting time. See Minn. Stat. §§ 518A.35, subd. 2, .36 (2016). As a result, Hansen's basic child support obligation was set at $424 per month.

Hansen specifically argues that the district court should have limited the parties' combined PICS to $15,000, and in doing so, reduced Hansen's gross monthly income from $10,728 to $9,104. Minn. Stat. § 518A.35, subd. 1(e), states:

For combined [PICS] exceeding $15,000 per month, the presumed basic child support obligations shall be as for parents with combined [PICS] of $15,000 per month. A basic child support obligation in excess of this level may be demonstrated for those reasons set forth in section 518A.43.

If a statute's language is clear, this court will interpret the language and discern the legislature's intent according to the plain and the common sense meaning of the words. State ex rel. Gardner v. Holm , 241 Minn. 125, 129, 62 N.W.2d 52, 55 (1954). The plain meaning of section 518A.35, subdivision 1(e), is that if the parents' combined PICS is over $15,000, the presumed basic child support obligation, not the parents' combined PICS, is capped. In this case, the combined basic child support obligation is capped at $1,883, the presumed guideline amount for one child when the parents' combined PICS is $15,000 or over. Minn. Stat. § 518A.35, subd. 2.

Hansen's interpretation of the statute would lead to an unfair and absurd result because there is no reasonable explanation for why any combined income in excess of $15,000 should only reduce the amount of his income that is calculated into the combined PICS and thereby reduce his PICS percentage to the detriment of Todnem. See Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (2016) ("[T]he legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable."). Despite Hansen's assertion to the contrary, there is a logical reason to use a combined PICS over $15,000 as it allows the district court to accurately calculate the percentage that each parent contributes to the PICS. Under these circumstances, the district court properly applied the statute and did not abuse its discretion in determining that the parents' combined PICS was $16,624 with a combined basic child support obligation of $1,883. Hansen's child support, which was calculated on this combined basic child support obligation, is in accordance with the child support guidelines.

II.

Hansen next claims that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request to provide in-home child care during before and after school hours. Because the district court considered, and Hansen argues on appeal, that this is an issue regarding the parties' parenting time, we analyze the issue through the lens of a typical parenting time modification.

The district court has broad discretion in resolving parenting time questions based on the child's best interests, and we will not reverse its decision absent an abuse of discretion. Olson v. Olson , 534 N.W.2d 547, 550 (Minn.1995).

After several months of difficult negotiations, the parties executed a parenting plan in which they agreed to joint legal and joint physical custody and equal parenting time with the child on a regular parenting time schedule. The parties also authorized a parenting consultant to select the child's elementary school. The parenting consultant selected a school located less than one-half mile from Hansen's residence. Hansen argued that he could provide care for the child before and after school during what would be Todnem's scheduled parenting time. Hansen asserted that his request would benefit the child because he can work remotely from home and this arrangement could therefore give...