Can the social worker and the court set child support at a 40hr week @ min wage when I am unemployed and babys mother works 25- 30 hrs per week. I am 19 she is now 18 , baby is 9 months. I have arrears for the birth and back support, didn't go to court till December, baby born May 7 2013. Mother was on medical assistance for 6 months, but off now. Does the state and county really have a say in the matter if we both want to work it out ourselves? there is now a judgment .
3 Answers from Attorneys
This appears to be a duplicative post: See other response. Magistrates set child support. In certain circumstances child support is not ordered and in certain circumstances it is appropriate to request a modification of the current order. I suggest you read about 'voluntary unemployment and underemployment' with regard to Minnesota child support and learn about what that concept means in the law. Again, see other response. All the best to you. Tricia Dwyer Esq at 612-296-9666, Tricia Dwyer Esq & Assoc PLLC, Minnesota Child Support Attorney, http://dwyerlawfirm.net
Yes. Under Minnesota statutes, where a person is not employed, it is presumed that they can work 40 hours per week at 145% of minimum wage.
Yes, the statute (518A.32) presumes an unemployed parent is able to work 40 hours per week earning 150% of minimum wage.
If something has happened since the time the previous order was issued, such that you now have grounds to rebut the presumption, you might be able to get a modification of the order, provided all the other conditions for modification are met. Some examples of conditions that may render unemployment involuntary include: physical or mental disability; incarceration (other than for nonsupport); your receipt of TANF assistance for the child; economic conditions related to the source of your income; and stay-at-home caretaking responsibility for the child, under some circumstances. The presumption can be difficult to rebut, and it may not be possible to do so if the condition providing the grounds for modification existed at the time the previous order was issued. Tom James, 320 286-6425, www.tomjameslaw.com