In November 1999, the trial court granted respondent sole legal and physical custody of the child without addressing child support. Respondent brought a motion in March 2000, requesting that appellant pay child support in accordance with the Minnesota Guidelines, reimburse respondent for daycare expenses, and permit respondent to annually claim the child as a tax exemption. In addition, the trial court denied appellant s request to require respondent to keep their child in the same school but granted appellant s request to claim their child as a dependent for tax purposes in alternate years. This appeal follows. I O N Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by determining her child-support obligation based on her past earnings rather than her anticipated future income and by building bonus and commission income into the base income.
Public policy favors setting child support at a specific amount.
For the purpose of determining child support, income is defined as any form of periodic payment to an individual. By definition, bonuses are forms of periodic payment and therefore income. The issue in this case is how to determine child support based on a total income that fluctuates due to receipt of commissions. Appellant presented evidence that her salary structure as an account associate was changing in 2000 to a higher base pay but a lower commission rate. But there was no evidence presented that this income level will continue.