Reclaiming Her Power: A Mother’s Fight for Her Family’s Tomorrow

A Narrative Story of In re the Marriage of Joneja, 422 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)

The morning Kathleen Anne Joneja* walked into the courthouse in December 1986, her hands trembled slightly as she clutched the legal papers. After years of watching her ex-husband Raj’s* income soar from $139,000 to over $330,000 annually while her daughters’ needs grew, she knew something had to change. The $600 monthly child support established in 1981 simply wasn’t enough anymore for fourteen-year-old Tina Joy and eleven-year-old Kim Alan.

As a trained music instructor with a Bachelor’s degree in voice and advanced training from Austria and Germany, Kathleen had once felt confident about her future. But the reality of single motherhood had shifted her priorities entirely toward her daughters’ wellbeing. The stress of stretching every dollar while watching Raj’s lifestyle flourish had kept her awake many nights, wondering if she was failing her children.

The months leading up to the hearing felt overwhelming. Kathleen worried constantly about whether she could provide the education and opportunities her daughters deserved. She calculated and recalculated expenses, knowing that private school costs alone were over $1,100 monthly, while basic living expenses continued to climb. The anxiety of potentially facing rejection from the court weighed heavily on her shoulders.

When the family court referee finally announced the decision in April 1987, Kathleen felt a wave of relief wash over her. The court had listened. They understood that her daughters’ needs had genuinely increased as they grew older, and that Raj’s substantial income growth warranted a meaningful adjustment. The child support would double from $600 to $1,200 monthly – the maximum guideline amount.

But the validation went even deeper. The court recognized that Tina Joy and Kim Alan deserved to benefit from their father’s success. Beyond the increased monthly support, Raj would now cover their private schooling expenses, maintain their health insurance, and provide life insurance protection for their future. The total monthly support would reach approximately $2,400 – a recognition that these children deserved to share in the standard of living they would have enjoyed in an intact family.

Standing outside the courthouse after the judge affirmed the referee’s decision, Kathleen felt something she hadn’t experienced in years: genuine peace of mind. Her daughters would have the educational opportunities and security they needed to thrive. The court had seen through the numbers to understand what really mattered – ensuring that Tina Joy and Kim Alan could build bright futures without their mother having to sacrifice their wellbeing for financial constraints.

For the first time since her separation in 1978, Kathleen felt empowered to focus on what she did best: nurturing her daughters’ growth and development, knowing that their basic needs and educational dreams were finally secure.

*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: What if my ex-spouse could earn more money but chooses not to work or take a better job?

Answer: Courts must consider how much time and training your ex needs to find appropriate work, and their age and skills, but they can assume income based on what your ex could reasonably earn if they’re choosing not to work.

Minnesota Statutes section 518.552, subdivision 2(b) requires the court to consider: “the time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment, and the probability, given the party’s age and skills, of completing education or training and becoming fully or partially self-supporting.”

In light of Passolt v. Passolt, 804 N.W.2d 18 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 2011), the appropriate employment factor took prominence in determining whether spousal maintenance is warranted and in setting the amount and duration.

Question: What happens if my ex had a good job during marriage but quit before the divorce to pursue a different career?

Answer: This is a difficult situation where courts have wide discretion, but they’ll consider whether your ex can return to their old job, why they changed careers, and the time and cost to go back versus continuing the new career.

Another challenge arises when, during the marriage, a spouse has been employed in a lucrative job, but has quit the job before the divorce to pursue another career that may not be as lucrative. Then a divorce starts. Does the spouse have an obligation to go back to the job they left during the marriage? This is a difficult scenario in which to predict an outcome and one where the court has wide discretion. Important factors will include: (1) the market available for the spouse to resume the prior job or a comparable position; (2) the reasons for the job change (such as burnout or depression); and (3) the time and cost to reenter the prior job versus continuing with the new career. Again, the court cannot force a spouse to work in any given job, but the court can assume income based on the spouse’s proven ability to be employed and earn income at a prior level. See Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst, 724 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).

Question: If my ex gets retrained and starts working, will that automatically end spousal maintenance?

Answer: Not necessarily – even with education and a new job, your ex may only be partially self-supporting, so maintenance might continue if they still can’t maintain the marital standard of living.

Even though a spouse may retrain and generate income, it should not be assumed that this will terminate spousal maintenance. In many instances, even with full education and reentry into the workforce, a spouse will only be partially self-supporting. Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 615 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000); Passolt v. Passolt, 804 N.W.2d 18 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). In these instances, demonstrating the spouse’s budget based on the marital standard of living becomes critical to sustaining spousal maintenance. While the spouse may be able to earn some income, the question of whether they are fully or partially self-supporting will depend on the spouse’s demonstrated needs.

Question: How do courts figure out what income to assign to someone who isn’t working or is underemployed?

Answer: Courts use similar rules as child support cases – they assume someone can work full-time (40 hours per week) unless there’s a good reason they can’t, and they look at what that person could reasonably earn.

To address the question of what sum of income should be imputed to a spousal maintenance recipient, we use this dissection of potential income from child support calculation analysis since there are 10 child support orders for every spousal maintenance order.

It is a difficult issue to determine a parent’s potential income for child support purposes when that party is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or not working full-time or when there is no direct evidence of the parent’s income. The child support legislation enacted a statute specifically dealing with how the court must determine income for child support purposes when a parent is in such a situation. Minn. Stat. § 518A.32. The definitions of unemployment and underemployment appear relatively unchanged. However, “potential income” is also used where a parent is employed on less than a full-time basis or when there is no “direct” evidence of any income. In Welsh v. Welsh, 775 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009), the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed proper determination of potential income under Minnesota Statutes section 518A.32. “If a parent is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or employed on a less than full-time basis, or there is no direct evidence of any income, child support must be calculated based on a determination of potential income.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1. In Welsh, the district court imputed potential income to the mother, despite evidence of her monthly trust income, because it found that she was “voluntarily unemployed.” The mother appealed the district court’s imputation of income, “arguing that the ‘direct evidence’ of her trust income ‘relieve[d]’ the district court of having to impute potential income to her.” Welsh, 775 N.W.2d at 367. The court of appeals held that the district court correctly interpreted Minnesota Statutes section 518A.32, subdivision 1, “as allowing imputation of potential income to mother despite the direct evidence of her income from the trust.” Id. The court of appeals concluded that if: (1) a parent is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or employed on a less than full-time basis; or (2) there is no direct evidence of any income, then “child support must be calculated based on a determination of potential income” as provided in Minnesota Statutes section 518A.32. Welsh, 775 N.W.2d at 367–69.

Question: What does “full-time” work mean for determining potential income?

Answer: Full-time generally means 40 hours per week, but this can be different in industries where most employers normally use more or fewer hours as their standard work week.

If a parent is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or employed on a less than full-time basis—or there is no direct evidence of any income—child support must be calculated based on a determination of potential income. For purposes of this determination, it is rebuttably presumed that a parent can be gainfully employed on a full-time basis. As used in this section, “full-time” means 40 hours of work in a week, except in those industries, trades, or professions in which most employers, due to custom, practice, or agreement, use a normal work week of more or less than 40 hours in a week. Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1. The May 2007 amendments indicate, “[t]his section applies to child support orders, including orders for past support or reimbursement of public assistance, issued under this chapter, chapter 256, 257, 518B, or 518C.” Id.

Question: Can someone avoid having income assigned to them by proving they can’t work 40 hours per week?

Answer: Yes, the presumption that someone can work 40 hours per week can be challenged with evidence, such as an employer not offering more hours or legitimate limitations on available work time.

Full-time employment is generally defined as 40 hours per week. However, the presumption that a parent can be gainfully employed 40 hours per week is rebuttable. See Beland v. Beland, No. A20-1070, 2021 WL 1081487, at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2021) (affirming CSM’s determination of actual income for a party at 32 hours because of affidavit testimony that “she is not offered more hours by her employer”); cf. Jacobs v. Fenikova, No. A20-0177, 2021 WL 1244412, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2021) (upholding the rejection of mother’s argument for potential income of 32 hours per week instead of 40 hours per week when mother testified she was unsure if working 40 hours per week was possible at her current job, her pay stubs showed that she had been working between 15 and 23 hours per week, and she submitted a proposed work schedule indicating she could only commit to part-time work). Working 36 hours per week can constitute full-time employment if such employment is considered full-time by the party’s employer. Nagel v. Penning, No. A09-337, 2009 WL 4910370 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009).

Question: What happens if someone claims their industry’s work hours are cut, reduced, limited, or only part-time without providing proof?

Answer: Courts won’t accept unsupported claims about industry standards – they need actual evidence that an industry typically works different hours than the standard 40-hour week.

However, in Carreon v. Sorensen, No. A15-0528, 2015 WL 7941277, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2015), the court of appeals found that the district court erred by making findings regarding the nursing industry that were unsupported by the record. Carreon argued that the district court erred by failing to impute additional income to Sorensen after finding that she voluntarily worked less than 40 hours per week. Sorensen testified that she needed to work fewer hours because the children did not finish their homework when they were in Carreon’s care. Sorensen also testified that she was a part-time employee and admitted that she only worked extra hours when she was mandated to do so and that she had requested fewer work hours. The district court concluded that the CSM made no error by not imputing additional income to Sorensen. But the only basis the district court provided was that “registered nurses ‘customarily work less than 40 hours per week as full time employees.’” Carreon, 2015 WL 7941277, at *1. The district court did not make any factual finding that supported Carreon’s testimony. The court of appeals found that the district court’s order and the record did not support the district court’s conclusion that registered nurses customarily work less than 40 hours per week.

Question: Can someone be considered underemployed for refusing to work more than 40 hours per week?

Answer: Yes, if your job typically requires more than 40 hours per week and you refuse to work those hours, you can be found voluntarily underemployed, especially if this limits your earning potential.

It is possible to be found to be voluntarily underemployed for refusing to work more than 40 hours per week. In Pnewski v. Pnewski, No. A20-0117, 2020 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 992 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2020), the court of appeals upheld a trial court’s determination that a party was voluntarily underemployed for refusing to work more than 40 hours per week on a regular basis as a financial analyst. The wife had been a financial analyst during the majority of the parties’ marriage. After she was terminated, she took on a new financial analyst position during the dissolution proceedings but left the position upon being told that she would sometimes be expected to work more than 40 hours per week, and thereafter took a position as a project manager earning substantially less than the position she left. The trial court found that the wife unjustifiably self-limited her income and that she was voluntarily underemployed. This determination was based on “[the wife’s] refusal to work more than 40 hours per week on a regular basis—as is apparently often required of salaried financial analysts—and the fact that this refusal limited her ability to find employment compensated at a rate commensurate with her earning history.” Pnewski, 2020 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 992, at *11.

Question: Can someone be considered voluntarily unemployed even if they retired from the military in good faith?

Answer: Yes, even a good-faith military retirement can result in being considered voluntarily unemployed if you’re still young enough to work and could find other employment.

It is also possible to be found to be voluntarily unemployed even though a party retired from the military in good faith. In County of St. Louis v. Bissell, No. A22-1097, 2023 WL 3047974 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2023), the father was deployed, and the mother left Washington and moved to Minnesota. The father tried to transfer to Minnesota, but he was unable to do so. Therefore, the father took early retirement from the Coast Guard. The CSM, upheld by the district court, based the father’s income for child support on his retirement income. The court of appeals reversed as the father was 47 and years away from a normal retirement age, and even though he received a monthly retirement benefit, that benefit was less than half of his full-time benefit. The court of appeals stated that the CSM failed to consider the possibility that the father could obtain employment in a new career when there was evidence in the record that the father had some employment since leaving the Coast Guard, and he testified that he was looking for other at least part-time employment. Bissell, 2023 WL 3047974, at *3. The court of appeals held that while the record supported that the father had a good-faith reason to retire from the Coast Guard, the record did not support that the father is excused from any obligation to obtain new employment because of his decision to move to be closer to the child. Id.

Question: Can courts assign potential income even if someone has other sources of income?

Answer: Yes, courts can add potential employment income to other income sources like trust funds if they find that someone is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.

Minnesota Statutes section 518A.32 states in part, “[i]f a parent is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or employed on a less than full-time basis, or there is no direct evidence of any income, child support must be calculated based on a determination of potential income.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1 (emphasis added). The Minnesota Court of Appeals has construed the “or” in that provision to be disjunctive. In other words, even if the party provides direct evidence of actual income, potential income can also be imputed to the party who is voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or employed on a less than full-time basis. See Welsh v. Welsh, 775 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). In Welsh, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s addition of potential income to the stay-at-home obligee’s actual trust income to equal her income for the purposes of calculating support and remanded the matter for a determination as to whether her status as a caregiver precluded her from being voluntarily unemployed.

Question: What happens if someone provides no evidence of their current income?

Answer: Courts will calculate potential income based on their last known wage and assume they can work 40 hours per week, especially if they don’t participate in the hearing to provide current income information.

When there is no direct evidence of any income, child support must be calculated based on a determination of potential income. See Mower County Health & Human Servs. v. Osborn, No. A21-0090, 2021 WL 371672, at *6 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2021) (upholding CSM’s potential income calculation based on 40 hours per week at last known hourly wage per the child support worker’s testimony when mother disconnected from the remote hearing before presenting evidence as to her current income).

Question: What happens if someone doesn’t make a good effort to find work?

Answer: If someone restricts their job search or doesn’t show good-faith effort to find employment, courts can assign income to them based on what they could reasonably earn.

An unemployed obligor who restricts job search efforts to full-time positions and fails to provide records demonstrating a good-faith effort to obtain employment risks imputation of income. Fumagalli v. Fumagalli, No. A16-2018, 2017 WL 3687627 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2017). In this case, the obligor was self-represented. The court reinforced that self-represented parties are held to the same standards as attorneys and determined that he had the opportunity to present his records, but he did not. The obligor also objected to the CSM requesting disclosure of his 401(k) assets, and the court of appeals found that the court is to consider “all earnings, income, circumstances, and resources of each parent, including real and personal property, but excluding income from excess employment of the obligor or oblige.” Fumagalli, 2017 WL 3687627, at *5 (citing Minn. Stat. § 518A.43, subd. 1(1)).

Question: How many job applications do I need to show I’m making a good effort to find work?

Answer: Courts have found that applying for only three positions is not sufficient effort, and they expect to see evidence of diligent job searching rather than just a few applications.

In Weidner v. Weidner, No. A10-295, 2010 WL 3546780 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2010), a proceeding to modify the former wife’s child support obligation, the CSM found that she was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and her obligation could be based on potential income. The former wife had been laid off from seasonal employment. The CSM found that she had not made a sufficient effort to find adequate employment because she had applied for only three positions. The court of appeals upheld the CSM’s findings that applying for three positions was not sufficient effort. See also Curry v. Levy, Nos. A11-643, A11-1525, 2012 WL 1970024 (Minn. Ct. App. June 4, 2012) (upholding imputing income to a parent by trial court who expressed doubt about the mother’s “desire to seek full-time, appropriate employment rather than continue this litigation” and found that mother “had not provided any evidence of attempts to secure employment since the cancellation of her previous contracts.”). But see Toso v. Toso, No. A12-1033, 2013 WL 2923639, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. June 17, 2013) (upholding trial court finding that mother was not voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or employed on less than a full-time basis because the court found that mother “continues to diligently look for employment but has found that her skill set is not in high demand given the reduced needs of businesses during the economic downturn”); Otterson v. Otterson, No. A21-0104, 2021 WL 4944674, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2021) (upholding the CSM’s finding that father living and working at a restaurant was not voluntarily underemployed when father, who was a mental health provider, was effectively barred from providing mental health services to individuals receiving public healthcare coverage in Minnesota which was 98 percent of his clientele, had felony drug charges pending against him, had his practice under investigation, and had applied to four specific mental health job postings with each application having been rejected).

Question: What if someone gets fired for their own bad behavior – are they considered voluntarily unemployed?

Answer: Yes, if someone loses their job due to their own misconduct or inappropriate behavior, courts can find them voluntarily unemployed even if they didn’t intend to reduce their income.

In Hennepin County v. Romanov, No. A14-1904, 2015 WL 4528932, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. July 6, 2015), the court of appeals addressed the circumstance when a party is fired for their own “nonconforming conduct.” The district court found that the obligor “lost his employment due to his own, nonconforming conduct despite knowing that following appropriate procedure was necessary.” Romanov, 2015 WL 4528932, at *2. The obligor argued that “any child support obligor who is fired for cause but is not found to have purposefully caused their discharge for the purpose of reducing child support should not be considered voluntarily unemployed.” Id. The court of appeals held that the obligor failed to show that the district court’s finding was error, and he did not cite to other facts that showed that the district court’s finding on voluntariness was clearly erroneous. The court of appeals held that there was no support for his argument in the child support statute or case law. The court of appeals concluded that the district court did not err by finding the obligor was voluntarily unemployed.

Question: What if someone changes careers but isn’t making enough effort to find work in their new field?

Answer: Courts can still assign income if someone’s job search is insufficient and their career change doesn’t benefit their children, even if they completed training for the new career.

In Hennepin County v. Akinnola, No. A15-0667, 2016 WL 764369, at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016), the court of appeals imputed income to an obligor when the obligor’s job search and career switch were insufficient to show the change in career benefitted the minor child. The CSM found that the obligor was voluntarily unemployed because he “completed his schooling, he is not making a diligent effort to find employment and is self-limiting his job search.” Akinnola, 2016 WL 764369, at *4. The court of appeals found that the obligor had only one phone interview and applied for only four positions in the previous six-week period. The court of appeals also found that the record did not show that the obligor’s career change from an engineer to an attorney had any benefit that outweighed the adverse effect on the minor child from the obligor’s diminished income due to the career change. The CSM imputed income to the obligor, and the court of appeals found it was not an abuse of discretion.

Question: Can courts assign income based on someone’s own testimony about their ability to work?

Answer: Yes, if someone testifies that they have the opportunity and ability to work more hours or full-time, courts can use that testimony to find them voluntarily underemployed.

In Hedberg v. Hedberg, No. A15-0266, 2015 WL 6633087, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2015), the court upheld a decision to impute income to a mother based on her own testimony. In October 2014, the county moved to establish child support on mother’s behalf. At the child support hearing, the parents testified about the nature and extent of their employment, income and expenses, and parenting time. The mother testified that for the past 10 years, she had worked part-time to help care for the children but acknowledged that she had the opportunity to work full-time in her current job. The mother agreed that she had the ability to work more than 30 hours a week in her current job and she testified that she worked full-time for the first eight years of her career but chose to reduce her work schedule before she married to prepare for a family and to take care of their children. The mother argued on appeal that the district court erred in finding that she was voluntarily underemployed based solely on her admitted ability to work additional hours. The court of appeals found that the mother’s testimony showed that she had the opportunity and the capacity to work full-time and concluded that the district court did not err in finding that she was voluntarily underemployed and imputing potential income to her.

Question: Are there situations where courts won’t assign income to someone who isn’t working full-time?

Answer: Yes, courts may not assign income if someone is genuinely pursuing education that will lead to better employment, or if their current situation represents a legitimate career change that benefits their family.

However, in Highley v. Kvaal, No. A14-1660, 2015 WL 7200632, at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015), the court of appeals upheld the district court’s decision not to impute income to a parent with two bachelor’s degrees and a pilot license. On appeal, Kvaal characterized Highley as a “lifetime student” and argued that Highly provided no evidence that she could not earn an income, that she had undertaken “a reasonable job search,” and that, because Highley holds two bachelor’s degrees and a pilot license, that she could work. Highley, 2015 WL 7200632, at *4. Highley testified that she had a private pilot license and could not be hired for pay. Highley also testified that she had a bachelor’s degree in graphic design from 1999 but was not able to pursue a career in graphic design once the minor children were born and her current employability in graphic design was limited. Highley was scheduled to obtain a bachelor’s degree in biology but she testified that she would not be able to receive a competitive salary in the St. Cloud area with only a bachelor’s degree. The district court found Highley’s testimony credible for spousal maintenance and child support purposes. Regarding child support, the district court found that, “even though Highley was currently unemployed and not seeking employment, ‘her training and education will ultimately lead to an increase of her income and also represent a bona fide career change that outweighs the adverse short-term effects of her decrease in income.’” Id. at *8. The district court did not impute income to Highley and ordered Kvaal to pay child support in the amount of $1,559 per month. The court of appeals upheld the district court. The court of appeals concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not imputing income to Highley because it found that she was not voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or employed on a less than full-time basis.

Question: Can courts treat spousal maintenance and child support differently when someone isn’t working?

Answer: Yes, courts can find that someone needs retraining for spousal maintenance purposes while still assigning income to them for child support if they’re not actively looking for work.

Compare Highley (see answer above) to Newman v. Newman, No. A15-0561, 2015 WL 9264101, at *5–6 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2015). For spousal maintenance purposes, the district court found that the mother was capable of earning $36,498 annually working full-time but that she was currently unemployed and had a need for retraining. The district court ordered the father to pay $1,500 per month in rehabilitative spousal maintenance. However, for child support purposes the district court imputed income to the mother by finding that she was voluntarily unemployed. The district court found that the mother was unemployed, had the ability to work full-time but had not applied for a job since November 2013 and calculated her potential monthly income at $2,080 based on working full-time (40 hours per week) at 150 percent of minimum wage at $8.00 per hour. (The practitioner should note that, as set forth in section 1.4.H.2., infra, effective March 1, 2016, Minnesota Statutes section 518A.32, subdivision 2(3) was amended to include “the amount of income a parent could earn working 30 hours per week at 100 percent of the current federal or state minimum wage,” instead of the previous income calculation set at 150 percent of the minimum wage). On appeal, the mother argued that the district court erred in imputing income to her because it found that she needed retraining and ordered the father to pay rehabilitative spousal maintenance for two years. The court of appeals upheld the district court’s imputation of income to the mother for child support purposes and pointed out that the mother “never testified that her current unemployed status was temporary and would lead to an increase in income, or that she was pursuing a career change, and the record does not indicate that either was the case.” Newman, 2015 WL 9264101, at *6.

Question: Can courts delay child support obligations to let someone find work in their field?

Answer: Yes, courts can temporarily defer child support to allow someone to find appropriate employment in their field or start a business, but they must actively look for work and report their progress regularly.

The court has the authority to defer the child support obligation to allow a parent to find adequate employment in their field of experience or establish a new business within their field of experience when the parent is unemployed in their field. See Hanson v. Hanson, No. A11-842, 2012 WL 426597 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2012) (the court of appeals upheld the deferment and specifically emphasized the trial court’s admonishment to the parent to “diligently seek employment” and that the court had mandated regular reports on the parent’s progress toward obtaining employment).