Court Opinion

ID: 9884472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:58:33.230777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:38.721042
License: Public Domain

FORSBERG, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent and would reverse the trial court.
In denying child support, it is clear the trial court primarily considered the parties’ stipulation and appellant’s attempt to waive child support, rather than the child’s best interests. Trial courts must primarily consider the best interests of the child and are not bound by any agreement between the parents waiving child support. Aumock v. Aumock, 410 N.W.2d 420, 421 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (quoting Tammen v. Tammen, 289 Minn. 28, 30, 182 N.W.2d 840, 842 (1970)).
The trial court also incorrectly required a showing of change of circumstances before establishing child support. Because child support was reserved in the decree, the statutory provision requiring a change of circumstances -before modifying a child support award does not apply. Mulroy v. Mulroy, 354 N.W.2d 66, 69 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). The majority’s reliance on O’Connor v. O’Connor, 386 N.W.2d 395 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) is misplaced in this context. In O’Connor, the parties’ stipulation covered all issues in the dissolution and the trial court was referring to circumstances justifying the agreement of the parties rather than the standard for modification of a . support order. Id. at 398.. Here, the parties’ stipulation covered only child support and custody, and the trial court referred only to the standard for modification of a support order.
The trial court should have considered the statutory factors in establishing respondent’s child support obligation. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5 (1988). I would therefore reverse and remand for consideration of those factors.