The new child support law that went into effect in August 2018 addresses basic child support, child care support and medical support, just like the previous law did. The new law also is silent about many of the children’s expenses – such as extracurricular costs – just like the previous law was.

The reason is simple. The child support statute provides for a monthly sum to be paid from one parent to the other. It contemplates that the children’s day-to-day living expenses will be properly covered by the parents once the monthly support obligation has been conveyed by the obligor parent to recipient parent. But what if they aren’t?

The new law calculates child support such that the more parenting time an obligor parent has, the less that parent pays to the other parent. So it stands to reason that the more parenting time an obligor parent has, the more that parent pays the kids’ day-to-day expenses in real time.

If the obligor has no parenting time, then there is no parenting expense adjustment downward with the expectation that the obligor parent covers other expenses. But if the obligor has parenting time, and therefore there is a parenting expense downward, the parents should probably have a mutual understanding and expectation regarding what contributions the obligor parent will make to day-to-day expenses, such as clothing, school lunches, and cell phones.

Minnesota’s artificial insemination statute is in need of gender neutralization. Minnesota Statute Section 257.56 provides that “if…a wife is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her husband, the husband is treated in law as if he were the biological father of a child thereby conceived.”

In the current age of marriage equality, this should read, “if…a woman is inseminated artificially with semen donated by a man not her spouse, the woman’s spouse is treated in law as if the spouse were the parent of the child thereby conceived.”

In the absence of gender-neutral language, if the spouse of the woman who is artificially inseminated is also a woman, she is required to adopt the child. As related in a Pioneer Press article authored by Dave Orrick, this creates unnecessary legal burdens that do not serve any useful purposes.

Here’s hoping that the Minnesota legislature remedies this problem so that other couples are not confronted with the same useless barriers.

https://www.twincities.com/2019/01/29/marriage-equality-lesbian-married-parents-actually-arent-treated-the-same-legally-as-straight-couples-will-it-change/?utm_content=fb-PioneerPress&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR2pIdhcRCuJ7NZZDVEI1w9i1T1nN9GFm2Kt1E0q1cxk-qTG1rMDNiurvVI

When a separated couple is addressing a child custody dispute, and one of the parents has a mental illness, it is not uncommon for the other parent to try to use the mental disorder as a “trump card.”  The underlying logic would be that a parent with a mental illness is “less fit” as a parent than one without a mental illness.  The fact is, if a parent is struggling with mental illness, and not properly managing it by following the advice of professional care providers, a child may be adversely affected.

However, if the parent is properly managing their diagnosis and complying with the care recommendations of their psychiatrist and/or psychologist, the other parent may be off-base to try to use it as an advantage.  Many mental illnesses are hereditary, so it may be problematic for children to hear one parent  speak negatively of mental health challenges that the children may themselves confront.

More importantly, if a parent is properly managing their mental illness, that may present a positive – not a negative – as it pertains to good parenting.  Meeting the challenge of addressing mental illness often requires a focus on all aspects of one’s health, and may provide better insight as a parent on how to model healthy behavior for one’s children.

When separated co-parents establish the grounds rules for their parenting schedule, it is common to include a “right of first refusal.”  The right of first refusal allows an “off-duty” parent to care for the child(ren) during the other parent’s parenting time if the “on-duty” parent is gone for a while.  The “off-duty” parent is made aware, in advance, that the child will be in the care of a third party because of the “on-duty” parent’s absence, and given the opportunity to provide care instead of the third party.

The right of first refusal may apply to an overnight, or for a block of time, such as four (4), six (6) or eight (8) hours – whatever the parties agree to, or whatever is devised by the court or decision-maker.

One issue that often arises with the right of first refusal is the situation in which it applies to children’s spending time with grandparents or extended family.  If the ROFR is applied strictly in every situation, then the children would theoretically never have sleepovers at a friend’s house, or long visits with grandparents.  Conversely, a parent could circumvent the ROFR altogether if grandparents are deemed an exception to the ROFR rule, and grandparents live nearby.

Most commonly, the right of first refusal applies to avoid children being in the care of a babysitter when they could be with their other parent.