Shearer v. Shearer, A16-0434
| Decision Date | 27 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | A16-0434 |
| Citation | 891 N.W.2d 72 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of: Justin David SHEARER, petitioner, Appellant, v. Mandy Jane SHEARER, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Douglas J. Mentes, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant).
David K. Meier, Samuel S. Stalsberg, Sjoberg & Tebelius, P.A., Woodbury, Minnesota (for respondent).
Considered and decided by Kirk, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Rodenberg, Judge.
Appellant-father appeals the district court's order modifying both the parenting-time provision of a judgment and decree of dissolution and the monthly child support to which he and respondent-mother stipulated, resulting in that judgment and decree. Father argues that the district court erred in modifying the parenting-time arrangement based on a best-interests finding, and in modifying child support to conform to the parents' exercise of parenting time and not the parenting time designated in the judgment and decree. Because we hold that a district court's finding concerning the best interests of the children is a sufficient basis to modify parenting time where the modification does not restrict either parent's time with the children, we affirm the district court's modification of the parties' parenting-time arrangement. But because the district court did not calculate the parenting-time expense adjustment according to the allocation of parenting time set forth in the judgment and decree, we reverse that modification and remand to the district court.
Justin David Shearer (father) and Mandy Jane Shearer (mother) married on August 4, 2002. In 2004, twin children were born to the couple. On March 13, 2013, father petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. On March 16, 2013, the parties signed a document entitled Stipulated Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment and Judgment and Decree, drafted by father's attorney. Mother was unrepresented.
Related to this appeal, the parties agreed in 2013 that it was in the best interests of their children that the parents "share permanent joint physical and joint legal custody of their children" and agreed that parenting time would be shared equally between them and scheduled to coincide with father's work schedule. Father works as a pilot for a commercial airline and is "able to bid for the times that he will work." Because he bids for a flight schedule on a monthly basis, his schedule varies monthly. His work requires that he be out of state for extended periods during which he cannot supervise the children. The parties stipulated:
Since separation, the parties have exercised a parenting time schedule in which [father] exercises parenting time with the children while he is not working, and staying at home. [Mother] exercises parenting time while [father] is working and out of town. The parties agree this permanent schedule is in the best interests of their children. The parties agree this schedule is a schedule in which they share equal parenting time of their children.
The parents also agreed on a relatively detailed holiday and vacation schedule, under which the children would each spend approximately half of the specified holidays with each parent, and each parent would be entitled to take a two-week vacation with the children each year.
The parties also agreed in their stipulation that father would pay child support of $1,187 per month, less mother's health-care contributions. This figure took into account the parents' respective shares of the Parental Income for determining Child Support (PICS)—79% for father and 21% for mother—and adjusted the child-support with a parenting-time expense adjustment appropriate for evenly split parenting time.
In May 2013, the district court accepted the parties' agreement and entered a judgment and decree with the stipulated language, ordering father to pay monthly child support of $1,187 and ordering, as the parties had stipulated:
The parties shall share parenting time on an equal basis, specifically [:] [father] shall exercise parenting time while he is not working. [Mother] shall exercise parenting time while [father] is working and traveling out of town. For child support purposes, the parents each exercise 50% parenting time.
In September 2015, mother moved for modification of both the parenting-time arrangement and child support. Concerning parenting time, mother requested a change in the parenting-time arrangement because father had "bid his schedule such that he always travels during the work week and is back to Minnesota for the weekends," and mother was therefore not spending any weekend time with the children. She alleged that, during the weekday parenting time, the children were in school full-time, mother worked full-time, and "[e]venings are spent on homework, errands, activities, and getting them ready for the next day." Mother asked the court to require father to arrange his schedule so that the children would be able to spend two weekends per month with mother.
Mother also requested that the district court modify child support to reflect the parents' current incomes and actual parenting time. Mother argued that father's parenting time amounted to "substantially less than 45.1%," and that father deserved a smaller parenting-time adjustment than that provided by the judgment and decree. Mother alleged that father actually parented approximately 35% of the time. She submitted calendars created from her contemporaneous records to support her calculations. Father disputed mother's calculations and submitted his own calendars based on his flight schedule.
The district court granted mother's motion and modified the parenting-time arrangement to afford mother weekend parenting time twice each month. It also increased child support. The district court found that mother's parenting time had included only five full weekends since January 2014 and determined that "[i]t is in the children's best interest to maximize the amount of time that they spend with both parents," and this "can be best accomplished by allowing both parents some weekend time." Accordingly, the district court ordered that, beginning in February 2016, mother would have parenting time on the second and fourth weekends of each month. The district court explicitly reiterated that this change was not to affect the total number of overnights the children would spend with each parent.
The district court also determined that father exercised 41% of parenting time in the first half of 2015, and that he had exercised more than 45% of parenting time during only eight months since the entry of the judgment and decree. The district court modified child support to reflect father's actual rate of parenting time in the first months of 2015. After recalculating the parents' PICS percentages, it ordered father to pay $1,968.
Father moved for amended findings or new trial on February 19, 2016. The district court, regarding the motion as a request for reconsideration under Minn R. Gen. Pract. 115.11, denied it. Father appeals the district court's order modifying both the parenting-time arrangement and child support.
I. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it modified the parenting-time arrangement?
II. Did the district court misapply the law when it modified child support?
Father argues that the district court erred when it modified the parenting-time arrangement to grant mother two weekends of parenting time per month. "The district court has broad discretion in determining parenting-time issues and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion." Dahl v. Dahl , 765 N.W.2d 118, 123 (Minn.App.2009). Reversible abuses of discretion include misapplying the law or "relying on findings of fact that are not supported by the record." Suleski v. Rupe , 855 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Minn.App.2014).
Father identifies three discrete errors by the district court concerning the modification of parenting time. He first argues that the record does not support the district court's finding that "there is no schedule specified in the Judgment and Decree." "A district court's findings of fact underlying a parenting-time decision will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous." Dahl , 765 N.W.2d at 123. Father argues that the judgment and decree alludes to a schedule, labeled the "regular weekly schedule," that the parties had followed during their separation: father parenting on the weekends and mother parenting during the week.
A schedule is "a procedural plan that indicates the time and sequence of each operation." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1110 (11th ed. 2014). More specifically, a "specific schedule for parenting time" includes "the frequency and duration of visitation and visitation during holidays and vacations." Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 1(e) (2016). This particular judgment and decree does not indicate which days the children will be with each parent; it states only that the parents will determine the parenting schedule according to father's work schedule. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err when it found that the judgment and decree identifies no parenting-time schedule.
Father next argues that, because the parties stipulated to the judgment and decree, it should have been accorded the "sanctity of a binding contract." This amounts to a request that we hold that parenting-time arrangements stipulated to by divorcing parties are entitled to greater deference than parenting-time arrangements otherwise ordered by the court. Before a stipulated marriage dissolution is merged into a judgment, courts treat it like a contract between the parties to the marriage. Toughill v. Toughill , 609 N.W.2d 634, 638 (Minn.App.2000). But after the court incorporates the stipulation into a judgment, the stipulation is treated as a judgment, not as a contract. Shirk v. Shirk , 561 N.W.2d 519, 522 (Minn.1997). The law expressly allows for modification of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cusick v. Cusick (In re Marriage of Cusick)
...its discretion if its decision is based on a misapplication of the law or is contrary to the facts in the record. Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. App. 2017). A child-support order may be modified on a showing of a substantial change in circumstances that makes the order unreaso......
-
Kemp v. Kemp
...v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn.App. 2017). This court will not reverse on these issues unless the district court abused its discretion. Id.; Schisel, 762 N.W.2d 270. "A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the......
-
Stanton v. Curran
...has broad discretion in determining parenting-time issues and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotations omitted). In deciding parenting time issues, a district court abuses its discretion if it makes findings of ......
-
Chamberlain v. Fleahman (In re Custody of B. L. F.)
...broad discretion in determining parenting-time issues, and we will not reverse absent an abuse of that discretion. Shearer v. Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72, 75 (Minn. App. 2017). Mother first argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion to modify the regular parenting......