Finding Her Voice: Kristi’s Journey to Fair Child Support

A Narrative Summary of State ex rel. Kandiyohi Cty. v. Koering, No. A20-1547, 2021 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 738 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2021) (reversing downward deviation where findings were inadequate).

The email notification felt like a punch to the gut. After years of struggling to make ends meet while raising their children, Kristi Barber* learned that Nathan, her ex-husband, wanted to reduce his child support payments even further. Their oldest child had just graduated high school, and Nathan saw this as an opportunity to pay less—despite earning nearly four times what Kristi made each month.

Kristi had been down this road before. In 2019, she had asked the court to increase Nathan’s child support, explaining how difficult it was to maintain their children’s standard of living on her modest income of $3,250 per month while Nathan earned $11,586. The court had dismissed her request without examining the factors that mattered most—her children’s needs and their family’s circumstances.

Now, facing another reduction in support, Kristi felt familiar frustration mixed with determination. She knew Nathan could afford to pay more, and her children deserved better than watching their mother struggle while their father lived comfortably in North Dakota.

Working tirelessly, Kristi compiled an 11-page affidavit and 82 pages of supporting documents. Every receipt, every expense, every detail showing the reality of raising their children on her limited income. She presented evidence of their children’s needs, the income disparity, and the standard of living the children would have enjoyed if their parents were still together.

At the August 2020 hearing, Kristi stood before the child support magistrate and made her case. She watched as Nathan’s request to reduce support was granted, but once again, her request for an upward deviation was dismissed with barely a glance at her carefully prepared evidence.

The magistrate’s reasoning was frustratingly brief: there was “no basis for an upward deviation.” No analysis of her children’s needs. No consideration of the vast income disparity. No examination of the factors Minnesota law required the court to consider.

But Kristi had learned something important—sometimes you have to keep fighting for what’s right, even when the system seems stacked against you. She decided to appeal.

Months later, the validation she had been seeking finally arrived. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the lower court had failed to do its job. The appellate court found that the child support magistrate had made a critical error by not analyzing the statutory factors required by Minnesota law when considering deviation requests.

“The CSM did not expressly address the requisite statutory factors,” the Court of Appeals wrote, acknowledging what Kristi had known all along—her case deserved proper consideration.

The court reversed the magistrate’s decision and sent the case back with clear instructions: examine the evidence Kristi had presented, consider the factors Minnesota law requires, and make a decision based on her family’s actual circumstances.

For Kristi, this wasn’t just a legal victory—it was validation that her voice mattered, that her children’s needs were important, and that the system could work when courts followed the law. She had persevered through years of frustration, and now she had a real opportunity to secure the support her children deserved.

The case would return to the lower court, but this time, Kristi knew her carefully documented evidence would receive the thorough analysis it had always warranted. Her determination to fight for her children’s well-being had finally opened the door to the fair consideration she had been seeking all along.

*This story is based on the true facts of the appellate court’s decision, but the personal experiences and emotions described are a fictional representation to bring the case to life.

Question: Can child support be increased or decreased from the standard calculation? What factors affect that?

Answer: Child support can be changed from the standard amount in certain situations. Courts can increase or decrease payments based on specific factors like income differences, parenting time, and the child’s needs.

Guideline child support arises from a rebuttable presumption. Minn. Stat. § 518A.35, subd. 1. Deviations are intended to encourage prompt and regular payment of child support and to prevent either parent or the child from living in poverty. Minnesota Statutes section 518A.43, subdivision 1a provides that an additional deviation factor will be available, allowing a $0 monthly basic support order for a party who has between 10- and 45-percent parenting time, if such a significant disparity of income exists between the parties that an order directing payment of basic support would be detrimental to the child.

Question: What happens if a parent doesn’t make enough money to pay child support?

Answer: Parents with very low income may get reduced child support payments if they can’t afford basic living expenses after paying taxes.

For low-income parents, the court may deviate if, after payment of income and payroll taxes, the obligor can establish they do not have enough money for the self-support reserve. Minn. Stat. § 518A.43, subd. 6.

Question: Can child support be set to zero dollars?

Answer: Child support can be set to zero if a parent has no ability to pay, and there are new rules about changing childcare support separately.

There is a provision that if an obligor has no ability to pay, support may be set at zero. Minn. Stat. § 518A.42, subd. 3(b) (effective Jan. 1, 2023). Another new provision is the right to modify childcare support independently. Although the amount of childcare support is effective the date of the change, a court order is still necessary. Minn. Stat. § 518A.40, subd. 4(d), (e) (effective Aug. 1, 2021). In a motion for modification, if the only change is an increase in the custodial parent’s income, the court may deviate from the guidelines if the parties combined monthly gross is $6,000 or less and the non-custodial parent’s income is $2,000 or less. Minn. Stat. § 518A.43, subd. 1b (effective Jan. 1, 2023). For disputed cases, typically, the court will not deviate unless a party requests it. If payments are assigned to the public authority, the court may not deviate downward unless the court specifically finds that failure to deviate would impose an extreme hardship on the obligor. Minn. Stat. § 518A.43, subd. 4.

Question: Can wealthy parents be required to pay more child support?

Answer: Parents who lived an expensive lifestyle can be ordered to pay more child support to maintain their child’s standard of living, especially for education and activities.

For parents who have maintained an affluent standard of living, it is appropriate to deviate upward to sustain the child’s accustomed standard of living. Marden v. Marden, 546 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). Significant educational and extracurricular expenses support an upward deviation. McNulty v. McNulty, 495 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).

Question: Are there special rules for children in foster care or out-of-home placement?

Answer: New rules require courts to consider whether child support payments might interfere with a parent’s ability to get their child back from foster care.

In the 2022 legislative session, a new deviation factor was added effective August 1, 2022. This new factor (8) provides that the court must consider “in cases involving court-ordered out-of-home placement, whether ordering and redirecting a child support obligation to reimburse the county for the cost of care, examination, or treatment would compromise the parent’s ability to meet the requirements of a reunification plan or the parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs after reunification.” See Minn. Stat. § 518A.43, subd. 1(8).

Question: What should lawyers include in child support agreements and court orders?

Answer: Lawyers should clearly explain why any changes to standard child support are in the child’s best interest and include all required financial information and worksheets.

It is very common for attorneys to state that an agreement was reached to deviate, but not state the guideline figures in the findings of fact of the resulting order. The best practice is to follow the statute and squarely address why the deviation is in the child(ren)’s best interests. It is the attorney’s responsibility to provide information about their client’s income, cost of insurance (both for self and dependents), and cost of childcare, if applicable. The guideline worksheets should be attached to the order and referenced. If the parties seek modification in the future, the court must make findings on the parties’ incomes at the time support was set and compare to present circumstances.