How do childcare responsibilities affect spousal maintenance in Minnesota?

In Minnesota divorces, the role a parent plays in raising children, especially very young or special-needs children, can directly impact whether they are expected to seek employment and how much spousal maintenance they may receive. Courts across the Twin Cities Metro Area and elsewhere in Minnesota are tasked with evaluating not only each spouse’s earning capacity, but also the realistic feasibility of a parent returning to work while balancing childrearing responsibilities. 

The divorcing spouses of several appellate cases illuminate how this principle is applied in practice, showing how deeply intertwined parenting duties and financial need can be.

For Carla Toughill*, divorce wasn’t just about ending a marriage—it was about protecting her young daughter while facing the pressure to financially support herself. Carla had been a full-time homemaker and mother during her marriage to Mark Toughill, and when they separated, their daughter was only four years old. Mark argued that Carla should immediately return to work and support herself. But Carla knew what full-time childcare would mean for her daughter: separation, disruption, and stress at a time when everything in her life was already changing.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals didn’t ignore that reality. In Toughill v. Toughill, the court recognized that “a child’s need for care can legitimately restrict a parent’s ability to be employed.” The Court found it reasonable that Carla’s return to full-time work could be delayed given the child’s young age, ruling that “the needs of young children may justify a delay in the obligee’s return to work” and supporting the district court’s temporary spousal maintenance award. The ruling made clear that the judicial system can—and should—consider caregiving responsibilities when determining a spouse’s ability to support themselves.

In Riley v. Riley*, the issue came into even sharper relief. Janice Riley was raising not just one, but multiple preschool-aged children. Her former husband, Richard Riley, insisted she was voluntarily unemployed and urged the court to impute income to her—essentially assuming she was capable of earning money she wasn’t actually making. But Janice’s daily life was filled with diaper changes, preschool drop-offs, and naptimes, not job interviews.

The Court of Appeals again supported the caregiver. In Riley, the court explained that “it is not unreasonable for a parent with preschool children to remain at home when the cost of child care equals or exceeds the income the parent could earn from appropriate employment.” Rather than penalizing Janice for staying home, the Court validated the economic impracticality of working only to pay for childcare.

Sometimes, the stakes are even higher. Imagine a child with profound special needs—nonverbal, requiring constant supervision, medical appointments, therapy sessions. The parent of that child doesn’t just face logistical barriers to employment—they may be providing care that no daycare facility could accommodate. While not tied to a specific case in the above line of decisions, Minnesota law allows the court to consider “the benefit to the child of having a parent at home versus full-time daycare” and weighs whether other family resources exist to share this burden.

This understanding of parenting as a valid and valuable contribution—not just to children, but to society—also reflects broader legal reasoning in Minnesota family law. If a family consciously chose during the marriage to have one parent stay home, the court may give weight to that marital arrangement. The spouse who stayed home shouldn’t suddenly be penalized for fulfilling the very role the couple agreed upon.

Even so, courts don’t hand out maintenance indefinitely. These rulings emphasize practicality and context. The goal is to strike a fair balance—between the recipient spouse’s need and the obligor spouse’s ability to pay, but also between a parent’s duty to their children and their future earning potential.

Ultimately, the Minnesota courts have confirmed that childcare responsibilities can justifiably delay or limit a spouse’s employment, and courts may adjust maintenance accordingly. Spousal maintenance in these circumstances isn’t about avoiding work—it’s about recognizing work that’s already being done and the real-life constraints of parenting.

Citations:

• Toughill v. Toughill, 609 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000) (“A child’s need for care can legitimately restrict a parent’s ability to be employed.”)
• Riley v. Riley, 385 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (“It is not unreasonable for a parent with preschool children to remain at home when the cost of child care equals or exceeds the income the parent could earn.”)
• Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (Factors considered in awarding maintenance, including “the contribution of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation and appreciation in the amount or value of the marital property, as well as the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker.”)
• *The identities of these parties and facts of their matter were publicly published and thus not confidential. While the case holding and statutory references are accurate, creative liberty has been imposed for the emotional portrayal of the parties.