Court Opinion

ID: 9884281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:51:05.02251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:37.237831
License: Public Domain

OPINION
SEDGWICK, Judge.
Douglas County Child Support Enforcement Unit as administrator for Jeanette Cavegn appeals the dismissal of a petition brought under the revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URE-SA). We reverse.
FACTS
The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 1981 in Minnesota. At that time the parties’ children were fifteen, thirteen and ten years old. Under the terms of the original decree, the appellant received custody of the parties’ three children, subject to respondent’s right to reasonable visitation. Respondent was ordered to pay $300 per month child support.
Two years later, the original decree was amended changing custody of the three children to respondent, and respondent’s child support obligation was deleted from the decree. After living with respondent for two years, the only unemancipated child moved to Wisconsin to live with appellant.
Appellant brought a URESA petition in Minnesota in November 1987. The trial court found that the respondent had no enforceable child support obligation under Minnesota law and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Did the trial court err in dismissing the URESA petition because of the absence of a support order under the dissolution decree?
ANALYSIS
The purpose of Minnesota’s revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act is to improve and extend the interstate enforcement of the duties of support. Minn.Stat. § 518C.01 (1982). The duty of support is defined as
a duty of support, whether imposed or imposable by law or order, decree or judgment of a court, whether interlocutory or final, or whether incidental to an action for divorce, separation, separate maintenance or otherwise and includes the duty to pay arrearages of support past due and unpaid.
Minn.Stat. § 518C.02, subd. 3 (1982). The applicable law is the law of state “where the obligor was present for the period during which support is sought.” Minn.Stat. § 518C.28 (1982). The question is whether respondent has a duty of support under Minnesota law.
The terms of a statute should be enforced according to their “plain meaning.” McClish v. Pan-O-Gold Baking Co., 336 N.W.2d 538, 542-43 (Minn.1983). The definition of the duty of support is broad and includes obligations incident to *246actions for divorce, separation “or otherwise.” The phrase “or otherwise” encompasses URESA proceedings.
The URESA statute includes obligations “imposed” or “imposable by law.” § 518C.02, subd. 3. Respondent argues that the deletion of his child support obligation terminated his duty to support under Minnesota law. The deletion may have terminated his “imposed” child support obligation but it did not terminate his “imposable” obligation. URESA applies to enforce a parent’s duty to support his or her minor children even where, as here, no order or decree imposes that duty. See England v. England, 337 N.W.2d 681, 683-84 (Minn.1983) (holding URESA action lies to determine and enforce parent’s child-support duty despite lack of order or decree imposing duty).
Parents owe their children a duty of support even after the marriage is dissolved. Mund v. Mund, 252 Minn. 442, 90 N.W.2d 309 (1958). The duty to support can be fulfilled in different ways. Here, when respondent had both physical and legal custody, he satisfied his support duty through his physical care of the child. Though appellant now has physical custody of the child in violation of the court order, respondent is still responsible for the child’s welfare.
The enforcement of a duty of support is unaffected by an obligee’s interference with custody or visitation rights. Minn. Stat. § 518C.16 (1982); England, 337 N.W. 2d at 684.
One basis for this concept is to prevent the child from becoming a pawn in the struggle between the parents. The child should not be affected because one parent violates a decree. The law has given the other parent a remedy: to go to court for an amended order.
Wisconsin ex rel. Southwell v. Chamberland, 361 N.W.2d 814, 816-17 (Minn.1985). Respondent has moved for an order requiring appellant to return the child to respondent’s custody but that motion is not at issue here. The separation of visitation and custody concerns from support issues reinforces the idea that a child’s needs are paramount and a duty to support is present regardless of custody.
DECISION
The deletion of respondent’s child support obligation while he had legal and physical custody of the child did not indefinitely terminate his duty of support. The trial court erred in dismissing the URESA petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Reversed.
RANDALL, J., dissents.