Nicole A. Nyhus, Respondent, Hennepin County, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A20-0218

Nicole A. Nyhus,
Respondent,
Hennepin County,
Respondent,

vs.

Sokkhan Ka,
Appellant

Filed December 21, 2020
Reversed and remanded
Reyes, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-PA-FA-000049303

Nicole Ann Nyhus, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Charles S. Weber, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Hennepin County)

Sokkhan Ka, Shoreview, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Gaïtas,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REYES, Judge
In this appeal from a child-support magistrate’s (CSM) denial of his motion to
modify his child-support award, appellant father argues that the CSM abused its discretion

2
by failing to (1) determine that his inability to work and respondent mother’s
unemployment status were substantial changes in circumstances necessary to modify child
support and ( 2) address respondent mother’s alleged failure to report her child -support
obligation in her application for unemployment benefits. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
Appellant Sokkhan Ka (f ather) and respondent Nicole Nyhus (mothe r) are the
parents of C.K., who was born in 2002. Father and mother signed a recognition of
parentage in July 2002, but never married. They ended their relationship in 2005 . C.K.
lived with mother at that time. Beginning in May 2011, the district court ordered father to
pay $150 per month in child support. He failed to pay for several years, resulting in over
$4,000 in arrears he owed to m other. In 2016, C.K. began living primarily with father.
Father moved to modify child support and parenting time . The CSM suspended father’s
child-support obligation but required him to pay $32.80 per month towards arrears.
Subsequently, respondent Hennepin County (the county) moved to establish
mother’s child-support obligation, and father moved to stop his payment of arrears. Father
also sought retroactive child support from mother. In its May 3, 2018 order (the order) ,
the CSM imputed a gross monthly income of $1,672 to father. It also found that mother
had recently lost her job, but had a gross monthly income of $1,551 from unemployment
benefits. Based on the parents’ income and the fact that C.K. resided primarily with father,
the CSM ordered mother to pay $244 per month in child support. However, the CSM
ordered that mother’s monthly obligation would “not be paid by [mother] but [would] be

3
applied to reduce the arrears owed” by father to mother. Once father’s arrears were reduced
to $0, mother’s payments would be made to father.1
In October 2019, father again moved to modify child support, alleging that he could
not work and that mother became voluntarily unemployed. At the motion hearing, f ather
testified that Robert S. Finn, DNP, CNP, found him unable to work as of August 27, 2018,
due to mental-health and chemical-health issues, though father acknowledged that he saw
Finn only once “every six months based on Ramsey County’s asking [him] to get a medical
opinion.” Father sought a retroactive i ncrease in child support starting August 27, 2018 .
He also alleged that mother never received unemployment benefits, failed to contribute to
C.K.’s support, and is now voluntarily unemployed. Father argued that mother’s support
obligation should increase because her potential income exceeded the unemployment
benefits on which the order was based.
In response to father’s motion, mother moved to decrease her child -support
obligation. She noted that her unemployment benefits terminated in November 2018.
After her benefits terminated, she received $642 per month through the Minnesota Family
Investment Program for four months. At the time of the hearing, she had no income even
though she had loo ked for work . She testified that , due to her high-risk pregnancy, her
doctor said she should work only four hours per day. Nevertheless, she testified that “with

1 Father moved for review of that order, which the CSM denied. Father then appealed,
arguing that the CSM miscalculated his income. This court affirmed the income
calculation, but reversed and remanded because the CSM impermissibly awarded
retroactive child support against mother, who was a custodial parent . Nyhus v. Ka , No.
A18-1089, 2019 WL 1007776 at *3 (Minn. App. Mar. 4, 2019). On remand, the CSM
withdrew retroactive support, but other aspects of the order remained the same.

4
all of my health issues, I believe it’s best for me not to work until after I have the baby. ”
(Emphasis added). Mother further testified that she could pursue full-time work after her
pregnancy.
On December 13, 2019, t he CSM issued a two-page order with its findings of fact
and conclusions of law denying both parties’ motions to modify child support. The CSM
found that “[b]oth parties remained unemployed ,” and determined that “[t]here has not
been a substantial change in circumstances that makes the existing order unreasonable and
unfair.” This appeal follows.2
D E C I S I O N
We review a district court’s order denying child-support modification for an abuse
of discretion. Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703, 708 (Minn. 2013) . The district court
abuses its discretion if its decision stems from a misapplication of the law or contradicts
the facts or logic. Hesse v. Hesse, 778 N.W.2d 98, 102 (Minn. App. 2009). We review the
district court’s factual findings for clear error. Suleski v. Rupe , 855 N.W.2d 330, 334
(Minn. App. 2014) (citations omitted). These same standards apply to a CSM’s decision.
Hesse, 778 N.W.2d at 102. Because father appeal s directly from the CSM’s order, our
scope of review is limited to “whether the evidence sustains the [CSM’s] findings of fact
and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment.” Kahn v.
Tronnier, 547 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

2 Neither mother nor the county filed a brief or otherwise opposed this appeal. This court
ordered the appeal to proceed under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.0 3 (providing that if a
respondent fails to file a brief, the case shall be determined on the merits).

5
I. The CSM’s order lacks sufficient findings of fact to allow meaningful review.

Father argues that his inability to work and mother’s voluntary unemployment both
constitute substantial change s warranting modification of child support and asks for
reversal because the CSM failed to address his arguments . Because the CSM’s factual
findings are insufficient, we are unable to adequately review this issue.
A CSM may modify a child -support order when (1) a substantial change in
circumstances (2) renders the terms of the existing order unreasonable or unfair. Minn.
Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a) ( 2018). Circumstances supporting modification include a
substantial increase or decrease in the income of either party. Id. The party requesting
modification of child support bears the burden of proving both prongs of the child-support
modification test. See Hecker v. Hecker , 568 N.W.2d 705, 709 (Minn. 1997) (making a
similar observation in the context of a motion to modify maintenance).
A parent’s income ordinarily includes any form of periodic payment to the
individual. Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2018). If a party is voluntarily unemployed or
underemployed, child support must be determined based on potential income. Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.32, subd. 1 (2018). Potential income derives from a parent’s (1) “probable
earnings level based on employment potential, recent work history, and occupational
qualifications in light of prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the
community”; (2) actual amount of u nemployment or workers’ compensation benefits; or
(3) amount of income earnable working 30 hours per week at minimum wage. Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.32, subd. 2 ( 2018). But if a parent is physically or mentally incapacitated, the
parent is not voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. Minn. Stat. § 518A.32, subd. 3(3)

6
(2018). As a result, potential income may not be imputed to a physically or mentally
incapacitated parent.
The CSM must provide sufficient f actual findings to ensure that it considered the
relevant statutory factors, facilitate appellate review, and satisfy the parties of careful and
fair consideration. Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 249 N.W.2d 168, 171 (Minn. 1976). The basis
for the CSM’s decision must “be set forth with a high degree of particularity if appellate
review is to be meaningful.” Id. (quotation omitted) (noting importance of factual findings
in custody and domestic-relations matters).
Here, the CSM did not address either of father’s assertions regarding both parties’
employment status es. Instead, it found that “[b]oth p arties remain unemployed” and
concluded that “[t]here has not been a substantial change in circumstances.” The CSM did
not address whether father remained able to work, and if not, whether this inability
constitutes a substantial change in circumstances warranting a change in support
obligations. Similarly, the CSM did not address whether mother became voluntarily
unemployed, and if she did, whether income should be imputed to mother and how much.
Because the CSM’s factual findings are insufficient on both issues, we cannot adequately
review the CSM’s decision. Rosenfeld, 249 N.W.2d at 171.
We therefore reverse and remand for additional findings and conclusions on whether
father’s alleged inability to work and mother’s employment status constitute substantial
changes in circumstances that render the existing order unreasonable or unfair. We express
no opinion on the merits of father’s arguments, and leave to the CSM’s discretion whether
to reopen the record.

7
II. The CSM did not determine whether mother failed to notify the unemployment
insurance office of her child -support obligation in violation of Minn. Stat.
§ 268.155, subd. 2 (2018). We therefore cannot adequately review this issue.

Father argues that mother failed to disclose her child -support obligation in her
unemployment-benefits application as required under Minn. Stat. § 268.155, subd. 2,
and that had she done so, he would have received child -support payments. The CSM
did not address father’s argument , even though father brought the argument in his
motion to modify child support . “An undecided question is usually not amenable to
appellate review.” Hoyt Inv. Co. v. Bloomington Commerce & Trade Ctr. Assocs., 418
N.W.2d 173, 175 (Minn. 1988). We therefore remand for additional findings and
conclusions on this issue , and leave to the CSM’s discretion whether to reopen the
record.
Reversed and remanded.