In re the Marriage of:

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1970

In re the Marriage of:

Katie Lynn Helsene, Petitioner,

vs.

Christopher Lee Helsene,
Respondent,

and

Crow Wing County, intervenor,
Appellant.

Filed July 15, 2019
Affirmed in part and remanded
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Crow Wing County District Court
File No. 18-FA-07-2580

Christopher L. Helsene, Brainerd, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney, Rockwell J. Wells, A ssistant County
Attorney, Brainerd, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Smith, T racy M., Judge; and
Kirk, Judge.


 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by app ointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
In this child-support case be tween petitioner Katie Lynn Helse ne (mother) and
respondent Christopher Lee Helsene (father), intervenor-appellant Crow Wing County (the
county) appeals the denial of its motion to modify father’s child-support obligation, arguing
that a new parenting-expense adjustment should have been applied to father’s basic-support
obligation and that the issue of medical-support offset was not determined. We remand for
determination of the effective date of the removal of the medical-support offset but affirm
in other regards.
FACTS
By order filed March 12, 2008 (the 2008 order), the district c ourt dissolved the
marriage between mother and father. The district court awarded mother sole physical
custody of the parties’ joint c hild subject to father having pa renting time with the child.
The basic schedule was that father would have parenting time “o n Tuesdays and
Wednesdays, both overnight each week and every other weekend (F riday evening to
Sunday evening).” The parties would alternate holidays. The district court also ordered the
parties to abide by a more detailed plan for parenting attached thereto. The plan affirmed
the basic and holiday schedules but added that “[e]ach parent i s entitled to reasonable
vacation time with [the child].” The dissolution judgment also required father to pay child
support.
On June 2, 2015, a child-support modification order was filed. Father was ordered
to pay basic support of $385 per month and carry health insurance for the child. The basic

3
support of $385 reflected a 12% parenting-expense adjustment. 1 Mother was ordered to
pay medical support of $159 per month to father, which resulted in a medical-support offset
being applied to father’s basic-support obligation.
Through a letter dated April 19 , 2018, the Crow Wing County Child Support Office
notified the parties that it had learned that father’s health-insurance coverage for the child
ended on October 31, 2017, and, therefore, the medical-support offset would be removed
effective November 1, 2017. Fath e r r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g t o c o n t est the removal of the
medical-support offset. Because the county was planning to seek modification of father’s
basic child-support obligation for other reasons, the matter, including father’s challenge to
the removal of the offset, came before a child-support magistrate (CSM) on the county’s
motion to modify. Among other things, the county argued that (1 ) the medical-support
offset should be removed and (2) a new parenting-expense adjust ment should be applied
to father’s basic-support obligation pursuant to an amendment to the relevant statute.2
The CSM issued an order on August 22, 2018 (the August order), refusing to apply
the new parenting-expense adjust ment and “reserv[ing]” both par ties’ medical-support
obligations. The county filed a motion for review by the same CSM, and the CSM denied
the motion in an order filed on October 3, 2018 (the October order). In the October order,

1 Father was found to have had parenting time between 10% and 45% under the 2008 order
and therefore was entitled to a 12% parenting-expe nse adjustmen t. See Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.36, subd. 2(1)(ii) (2014).

2 Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 2 (2018), lays out a new method o f calculating parenting-
expense adjustment based on the number of overnights that each parent has with the child
annually.

4
responding to the county’s argument that the August order did n ot address the issue of
medical-support offset, the CSM e xplained that “reserving” the parties’ medical-support
obligation eliminated the then-existing obligation.
The county appeals.
D E C I S I O N
“[W]hen reviewing a child support magistrate’s order . . . , w e will apply the same
standard of review that we would apply to the order if it had been issued by a district court
judge . . . .” Brazinsky v. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn. App. 2000). Whether to
modify child support is within the broad discretion of the district court. Shearer v. Shearer,
891 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. App. 2017). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision
is based on a misapplication of the law, is contrary to the facts, or is contrary to logic. Id.
I. The CSM did not abuse his discretion by not applying the new p a r e n t i n g -
expense adjustment.

In 2016, the legislature set forth a new method of calculating a parenting-expense
adjustment. 2016 Minn. Laws ch. 1 89, art. 15, § 20, at 1120-21 (codified at Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.36 (2018)). The county argues that the CSM abused his di scretion by refusing to
recalculate the 12% parenting-expense adjustment under the new method.
I f c h i l d s u p p o r t w a s e s t a b l i s h e d b y a p p l y i n g a p a r e n t i n g
expense adjustment . . . under previously existing child support
guidelines and there is no parenting plan or order from which
overnights or overnight equivalents can be determined, there is
a rebuttable presumption that t he established adjustment . . .
will continue after modification so long as the modification is
not based on a change in parenting time.

5
Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(d) (2018). The modification motion at issue here was “not
based on a change in parenting time.” Id. And the 12% parenting-expense adjustment was
determined “under previously existing child support guidelines,” based on the parenting-
time schedule set by the 2008 order. Id. But the CSM continued the established parenting-
expense adjustment, and declined to apply the new method, because, it decided, the number
of overnights could not be determined.
The county argues that the 2008 order is an “order from which overnights . . . can
be determined.” Id. According to the county, the 200 8 order “specifically provides that
[father] has parenting time with the child ‘on Tuesdays and Wed nesdays, both overnight
each week and every other weekend (Friday evening to Sunday eve ning)’ and on
alternating holidays.” Based on that language, the county argue s that father has 156
overnights with the child in a year. The county’s calculation a ccurately reflects the basic
schedule. It may also accurately r eflect the holiday schedule g iven that the alternating
holidays would likely result in complete offset in the long run . However, in the plan for
parenting attached to the 2008 order, by which “the parties sha ll abide,” “[e]ach parent is
[also] entitled to reasonable va cation time with [the child].” The 2008 order does not
specify how long “reasonable vacation time” is. Thus, it is not possible to determine what
the accurate number is.
Therefore, it becomes important how specific an order should b e under Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.39, subd. 2(d), to be considered an “order from which ov ernights . . . can be
determined.” Put into the context of this appeal, the issue is whether, even in light of the
uncertainty regarding “reasonable vacation time,” the CSM commi tted a reversible error

6
by finding the 2008 order not specific enough. The county does not argue that the CSM did
so err. It presents no authority or argument for how to interpr et Minn. Stat. § 518A.39,
subd. 2(d), or for why the CSM’s interpretation constitutes a reversible error. The county
fails to meet its burden on appeal. See Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn.
1 9 4 4 ) ( “ [ O ] n a p p e a l e r r o r i s n e v e r p r e s u m e d . I t m u s t b e m a d e t o appear affirmatively
before there can be reversal . . . [and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who
relies upon it.”).
II. The CSM abused his discreti on by failing to determine the e ffective date for
the removal of the medical-support offset.

Under the medical-support statu te, when a child-support obligor contests the public
authority’s action to remove the medical-support offset, the obligor must be given a hearing
and “[t]he district court or child support magistrate must determine whether removing . . .
the offset is appropriate and, if appropriate, the effective date for the removal.” Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.41, subd. 16(d) (2018).
The county argues that the CSM did not determine whether remov al of the medical-
support offset was appropriate and, if so, the effective date o f the removal. The August
order states that the parties’ “medical support obligation[s] [ are] reserved until further
order.” According to the CSM’s October order, that statement in the August order means
that the CSM “eliminated” the medical-support obligations of th e previous order. The
elimination of mother’s medical-support obligation means in tur n that father is no longer
entitled to a medical-support offset. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.41, subd. 16(a) (2018) (“If a
party is the parent with primary physical custody . . . and is [a medical-support] obligor

7
. . . , the other party’s child support . . . obligations are s ubject to an offset . . . .”). The
county does not explain how the determination that father’s child-support obligation is not
subject to a medical-support offset is different from a determination that the removal of his
medical-support offset is appropriate. Also, the county does no t explain why the CSM’s
own interpretation of the Augus t order is clearly erroneous. See Suleski v. Rupe , 855
N.W.2d 330, 339 (Minn. App. 201 4) (holding that a district cour t’s interpretation of an
ambiguous provision in an order is reviewed for clear error). The CSM made the requisite
finding that removing the offset was appropriate.
But, as the county argues, the CSM did not determine the effective date for removal
of the offset. Under Minn. Stat. § 518A.41, subd. 16(b) (2018), the effective date for the
removal is “the first day of the month following termination of the joint child’s health care
coverage.” The county argued in its motion that that date is No vember 1, 2017, but the
CSM failed to render any disposition on that argument. We reman d for determination of
the effective date for removal of the medical-support offset.
Affirmed in part and remanded.