County of Anoka, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0246

County of Anoka, petitioner,
Respondent,

Abang Simon Adam, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Menasa Cham Adom,
Appellant.

Filed December 4, 2017
Affirmed
Kirk, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-FA-16-2160

Anthony C. Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Francine P. Mocchi, Assistant County
Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent county)

Abang Simon Adam, Spring Lake Park, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Menasa Cham Adom, Fridley, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KIRK, Judge
Appellant-father challenges the child support magistrate’s order that he pay $729
per month as ongoing basic child sup port for three minor children, arguing that the
magistrate overstated father’s gross monthly income in calculating his child -support
obligation under the Minnesota Child Support Guidelines. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant-father Menasa Cham Adom and respondent-mother Abang Simon Adam
married in Sudan in 1993 and separated on or about August 12, 2014. The parties have
three joint children.
On November 22, 2016, Anoka County served father with an action seeking child
support and requested a hearing . On January 5, 2017, a hearing was held before a child
support magistrate (CSM) at which father and mother appeared pro se. At the time of the
hearing, father was a self-employed taxicab driver, and mother was employed as a cashier.
Father testified as to his income but did not provide his tax return, earnings statements, or
other income evidence. Mother testified as to her income and provided earning statements
and her tax return.
Father testified that he thought he earned $3,000 in gross income in 2015 and did
not recall his gross income in 2016. He estimated that his current monthly income was
“from 800 to 1,200, or 1,100.” Father also thought that he made $900 in October 2016 and
$400 in December 2016, but could not recall his income in November 2016. Father initially

3
testified that his daily gross income was $120 to $130 per day before a $75 daily cab leasing
fee was deducted. Father then stated that he could earn more or less depending on the day,
and added that, “I’m just saying 130 or 150.” Father then testified that on some days he
could make $120 to $130 after paying the $75 daily fee. When the CSM asked father about
the apparent contradiction in his testimony, father agreed that he could make $120 to $130
per day before or after paying the $75 fee.
Father also testified that he suffered a heart attack in January 2016, for which he
received treatment, and that he was in a car accident in November 2016, for which he saw
a chiropractor. Father suggested that these medical conditions affected his ability to work,
but he admitted that neither his treating physician nor his chiropractor placed any work
restrictions on him. Father did not bring any medical documentation to the hearing. Father
also testified that before the accident he worked five days per week in September 2016.
For the purposes of calculating father’s child support, the CSM found that “[father]
has the ability to work and earn gross monthly income in the amount of $2,600.00 ($120.00
daily, five days per week) [,]” and that $2,600 was his gross monthly income pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 518A.29 (2016). Wit h this finding of gross income, and based on all other
relevant factors of the Minnesota Child Support Guidelines, the CSM c alculated father’s
ongoing basic child-support obligation per month as $729. Father appeals.

4
D E C I S I O N
Father argues that the CSM erred by finding that his gross monthly income is $2,600
for the purposes of calculating his child-support obligation.1 Father does not challenge the
CSM’s findings regarding the other factors used to calculate his monthly child -support
obligation under the child -support guidelines. A district court has broad discretion to
determine a parent’s child-support obligation. Rutten v. Rutten, 347 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn.
1984). On appeal from a CSM’s order, this court applies the same standard of review that
would apply if the order had been issued by a district court. Hesse v. Hesse, 778 N.W.2d
98, 102 (Minn. App. 2009). Thus, we review a CSM’s order under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. Putz v. Putz, 645 N.W.2d 343, 347-48 (Minn. 2002).
We will not reverse a CSM’s child-support order unless the CSM abused his “broad
discretion” by resolving the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on
record.” Id. at 347. “A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607
N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotations omitted). W e review the record “in the
light most favorable to the . . . court’s findings. ” Id. We defer to the district court ’s
credibility determinations. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. The party challengi ng a finding on

1 Father also requests reconsideration of his child -support obligation on the basis of new
income and medical documentation , and suggests that parenting -time arrangements have
changed. This information was not submitted to the CSM. An appellate court may not
consider facts not produced and received in the record by the court below. See Thiele v.
Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 -83 (Minn. 198 8); see also Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110 .01
(noting that “[t]he documents filed in the [district] court, the exhibits, and the transcript of
the proceedings . . . shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases.”).

5
appeal has the burden to show that the finding is clearly erroneous. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d
at 474.
The calculation of child support under the Minnesota Child Support Guidelines is
based, to a significant extent, on each party’s gross income. See Minn. Stat. §§ 518A.34,
.35 (2016). “[G]ross income includes any form of periodic payment to an individual,
including, but not limited to, salaries, wages, commissions, self-employment income . . .
and potential income . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2016). A court must calculate child
support based on a parent’s potential income where “a parent is voluntarily unemployed,
underemployed, or employed on a less than full -time basis, or there is no direct evidence
of any income.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 1 (2016). There is a rebuttable presumption
that a parent can be gainfully employed on a full-time basis. Id.
A court’s determination of a parent’s gross income must be ba sed on facts in the
record. Newstrand v. Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681, 685 (Minn. App. 2015). From the facts in
the record, a district court ma y make a “reasonable estimate ” of a parent’s gross income
per month. Knott v. Knott, 358 N.W.2d 493, 496 (Minn. App. 1984). A reviewing court
need not conclude that a finding is clear ly erroneous solely because some evidence in the
record may support a finding other than the one made by the CSM, and we do not reconcile
conflicting evidence. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d at 474.
Here, the CSM’s finding that father had the ability to earn $120 per day and work
five days per week is supported by father’s own testimony and the potential income he
could earn, which the CSM was allowed to consider. Father testified that he could ear n

6
$120 to $130 per day after paying the $75 fee, and that he had worked five days per week
since his heart attack and had no medical restrictions in place. Father testified that his heart
attack and car accident affected his potential income, but he submitted no evidence to rebut
the CSM’s findings. The CSM found father’s testimony “evasive, incomplete, and
contradictory.” We defer to the CSM’s credibility determination.
Moreover, father admitted that he did not bring his tax returns or any evidence of
his income to the child -support hearing despite receiving the c ounty’s request that he do
so. “[A] party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [the party’s] favor
when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district
court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question.”
Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , 668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003) , review denied
(Minn. Nov. 25, 2003). We conclude that the CSM did not clearly err or otherwise abuse
his discretion in determining that father’s gross monthly income, for the purposes of
calculating his child-support obligation, is $2,600.
Affirmed.