Court Opinion

ID: 9657320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:20:37.960231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:43.456776
License: Public Domain

CRIPPEN, Judge
(dissenting)
No doubt the labeling of physical custody as “joint” has emotional impact, good or bad, for some parents. But as defined by Minnesota statute, the legal impact of the label is at best meaningless. At worst— whenever the courts give weight to its use — it is a persistent source of injustice.3 That is the case in this matter.
The label “joint physical custody” can be used indiscriminately as a substitute for sole custody with visitation. The statute provides: “ ‘Joint physical custody’ means that the routine daily care and control and the residence of the child is structured between the parties.” Minn.Stat. § 518.003, subd. 8(d) (2000). Nothing in the law precludes a 90%/10% care-sharing arrangement with the label “joint.”
Use of the label may give a benefit where none is justified. The Hortis decision recognized that when a joint-custody arrangement results in each parent being a noncustodial parent for six months of the year, that parent should pay child support only during those six months when the child resides with the other parent. Hortis v. Hortis, 367 N.W.2d 633, 635 (Minn.App.1985). Even in Valento, where we said that the same method should be used to calculate support in all joint custody situations, the parents divided physical care 57%/43%. Valento v. Valento, 385 N.W.2d 860, 862 (Minn.App.1986), review denied (Minn. June 30, 1986);4 see also Rumney v. Rumney, 611 N.W.2d 71, 75 (Minn.App.2000) (adopting a “nearly equal” amount of physical care standard for applying the Hortis/Valento formula and rejecting application of the standard for a 61%/39% arrangement).
The majority opinion disregards the potential injustice of using the Hortis/Valento formula in situations of unequally shared care. Are there considerations that outweigh this risk? The majority finds it important that the parties are free to negotiate an agreement with the knowledge of its consequences. Would the injustice of an inappropriate application of Hor-tis/Valento be overcome by the importance of having an inflexible rule on the subject?
In fact, upholding the freedom for negotiation of the parties increases the potential for injustice. The Hortis/Valento formula becomes a bargaining chip that is not apt to be corrected by the trial courts. Parties in negotiations can evade the guidelines by tying threats or promises to demands for the joint-physical-custody label. A party is free to demand concessions in exchange for a guidelines support obligation or, worse, exchange threats for litigation of claims for an artificial joint-physical-custody designation.
The use of labels that have automatic, peculiar consequences leads to destruction *284of the underlying aims of child-support law, including the statutory guidelines. Recognizing the injustice of labels from the vantage point of a noncustodial parent with shared custody, we have applied the Hortis/Valento formula even though one parent was designated sole physical custodian. Tweeton v. Tweeton, 560 N.W.2d 746, 748-49 (Minn.App.1997), review denied (Minn. May 28, 1997). We also employed the endangerment standard on a custody-modification proposal when a parent, who was designated the sole physical custodian, wished to substantially restructure an equally shared custody arrangement by moving the children several miles away and to a new school district.. Lutzi v. Lutzi, 485 N.W.2d 311, 315 (Minn.App.1992). We should be equally diligent in diminishing the significance of the joint-physical-custody label for the sake of an appropriate guidelines determination.
Tweeton and similar decisions cannot be read without appreciating the recognition given to labels in some cases. But none of these seemingly conflicting holdings, none of which bear directly on the issue of child support, justifies disregarding the evidence of a pattern of caretaking that materially conflicts with the label used in a judgment. See Frauenshuh v. Giese, 599 N.W.2d 153, 158-59 (Minn.1999) (following the statutory standard for the sole-physical-custody label employed in the termination agreement, yet not precluding application of a different standard for a showing of de facto joint physical custody); Silbaugh v. Silbaugh, 543 N.W.2d 639, 641-42 (Minn.1996) (enlarging the consequences of a sole-physical-custody arrangement because of the label in circumstances where there was no evidence of a claim of shared or nearly shared care). Singularly, Ayers v. Ayers, 508 N.W.2d 515, 520 (Minn.1993), upholds the significance of a label somewhat at odds with the real custody arrangement in the case — the joint-physical-custody label where one parent evidently was twice as active in caretaking. Ayers permits use of the best-interests standard for the opponent of a proposed move of the children to another state. Id. The breadth of the holding is limited because the decision is pointedly aimed at the important child-custody goal of protecting the children’s relationships with each parent.5
I further hazard the observation that our application of statutory law in this case has constitutional implications. The decision to adhere to the labels in this case lends itself to an equal-protection challenge. The equal-protection clause requires that “persons similarly situated be treated similarly” unless the distinction serves a legitimate governmental interest. Lidberg v. Steffen, 514 N.W.2d 779, 784 (Minn.1994) (citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2394, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982)); LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d 151, 165 (Minn.App.2000), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000). First, the distinction treats similarly situated persons differently: both groups provide the same pattern of care for their children and are obligated by court order to support those children, but different standards apply to caretakers denominated as joint-physical custodians and those denominated as noncustodians. Second, there is no reasonable basis for the distinction based on necessity or circumstances because the children would need the same amount of support regardless of the legal category their parents fit into. Third, although the labeling distinction may be germane to the purpose of the law in cases where a noncustodial parent provides equal care for the child, it serves no distinctive need under other circumstances. The law may be unconstitutional and void in its application to some but constitutional as to others. Cf. City of St. Paul v. Dalsin, 245 Minn. *285325, 330-31, 71 N.W.2d 855, 859 (1955) (“A legislative act may be unconstitutional and void in its application to some persons or separable subject matters and constitutional as to others.”).
Because the child-support magistrate correctly elevated substance over form, a result the trial court should have applied to justly and lawfully decide the case, I respectfully dissent.

. However defined or used, the label is often flawed in its focus on the rights of parents to the exclusion of the best interests of the child. For this reason and others, the legislature has adopted a concept that focuses on actual care of the child, a plan for parenting that employs no labels. Minn.Stat. § 518.1705 (2000).

. Valento must be read cautiously insofar as it suggests rote application of the joint-physical-custody standard in cases where shared care is unequally divided. Taken to its logical and unjust extreme, Valento could stand for the proposition that the court must apply the Hortis/Valento formula when parties designated as joint custodians split custody 90%/10%.

. In contrast, this court has previously elevated form over substance and applied the endangerment standard to a custody-modification case because of the sole-physical-custodian label in a situation where the parent opposing removal of the child from the state was a de facto joint-physical custodian. Wilson v. Wilson, No. C6-97-562, 1997 WL 559735, at *5-8 (Minn.App. Sept.9, 1997) (Crippen, J., dissenting).