Court Opinion

ID: 9883839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:22:07.009978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:32.023923
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge
(dissenting in part, concurring in part).
I respectfully dissent in part, concur in part, and would remand for the following reasons:
1. I concur with the majority in its holding that the trial court had discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the petitioner in a parentage action where private counsel is retained. The trial court should be reversed and the matter remanded on this issue.
2. I disagree with the majority and would affirm the trial court’s setting of child support. The trial court properly applied Packer v. Holm, 364 N.W.2d 506 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). In Packer, the referee in Ramsey County recommended child support for a child involved in a paternity action after considering the amount the respondent was paying for the support of his child from a prior marriage. The recommendation was confirmed by the Ramsey County district court and we held as follows:
The district court determined $125.00 as the amount of child support appellant was entitled to receive and considered respondent’s pre-existing support obligation from the prescribed guideline amount for two children at respondent’s income level. Where the father is supporting children in two different households, the guidelines cannot be rigidly applied. Thus, departure by the trial court was justifiable under these circumstances. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of child support.
Id. at 507.
Later, in Bredeson v. Bredeson, 380 N.W.2d 575 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), we reversed and remanded for more adequate trial court findings and said:
Appellant contends that the appropriate computation under the guidelines would be to multiply the guidelines’ percentage factor for three children by the amount of his net income (.35 x $2102 = $735.64), then divide this amount by three ($735.64 v 3 = $245.21) to determine support for each child. The guidelines do not specify the method to be used where the three dependent children each live in separate households. We are reluctant to impose an automatic application. The determination should depend on the facts in each case. The proposed calculation may be appropriate in some fact situations and work an unfairness in others. In the present case, the facts are insufficient for this court to resolve the issue.
Id. at 578.
In this matter, the Ramsey County referee recommended $1500 per month child support. The trial court modified the amount, reducing it to $900 per month, relying on Packer, and because the respondent was already paying $1200 per month for the support of the two children from the previous marriage. A trial court may consider previous support awards that the obligor is paying. Minn.Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(c) (1984). Here, the total amount to be paid for all three children equals the 35% of the maximum $6000 per month provided in the guidelines.
The trial court cited three reasons. In my opinion, the first two reasons given are sufficient findings to affirm. The third reason given is obviously improper in view of Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 93 S.Ct. 872, 35 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973). Where there is an acceptable basis in fact and principle of an award, however, and it is not inequitable, we should give deference to the trial court and affirm.
In my opinion, the majority opinion unfortunately restricts the application of Packer and improperly considers the amount of income and resources of the *373respondent over the maximum $6000 per month provided in the guidelines.
While not applicable to this matter, the legislature, by modifying the guidelines and prescribing additional factors that the court may consider, has evidenced a new approach in setting child support by the adoption of S.F. 1732, Minn.Laws 1986 ch. 406, effective August 1, 1986.