In Re the Custody of A.L.A.;

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-0257

In Re the Custody of A.L.A.;

Bamidele Adetifa,
Appellant,

vs.

Betiel Ambaye Mehari,
Respondent,

Dakota County,
Respondent.

Filed November 17, 2025
Affirmed
Bond, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-FA-20-298

Bamidele Adetifa, Minneapolis, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Betiel Ambaye Mehari, Burnsville, Minnesota (self-represented respondent)

Kathryn M. Keena, Dakota County Attorney, Jenny R. Nystrom, Assistant County
Attorney, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Dakota County Child Support)

Considered and decided by Bond, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BOND, Judge
Appellant father challenges the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss
his child-support obligation. Father argues that he is not required to pay child support
2
under Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 3 (2024), and that the district court abused its discretion
by dismissing his motion with prejudice. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Bamidele Adetifa (father) and respondent Betiel Ambaye Mehari
(mother) are the parents of a joint child, born in 2018. In June 2020, father filed a petition
to establish custody and parenting time. Mother assigned her rights to child support to
Dakota County Child Support (the county) pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518A.81, subd. 2
(2024).1
In February 2021, the district court issued stipulated findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and order (2021 stipulated order) awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody
of the child. The 2021 stipulated order found that father’s gross monthly income was
$8,551 and mother’s gross monthly income was $2,988. The 2021 stipulated order
required father to pay mother $370 per month in child support and to provide the child with
medical, dental, and vision insurance, as long as father had medical coverage available
through his employer or other sources. The 2021 stipulated order was signed by father,
mother, and their respective counsel and stated that the parents “agree and wish to be bound
by this agreement believing th[at] it is fair and equit[able] and in the best interest of their
minor child.” Father did not appeal the 2021 stipulated order.

1 Minn. Stat. § 518A.81, subd. 2, was originally codified at Minn. Stat. § 256.741, subd. 2
(2020), which was amended in 2024. 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 80, art 8, § 68, at 227
(renumbering Minn. Stat. § 256.741 (Minn. 2022)). Because the amendment did not
change the substance of the applicable section, we cite to the current statute.
3
In May 2024, father filed correspondence requesting that the district court dismiss
his child-support obligation and award retroactive reimbursement for prior child-support
payments. Father asserted that his child-support obligation violated various constitutional
rights. The district court construed father’s correspondence as a motion, set the matter on
for a hearing and, after the hearing, denied father’s motion.
In August 2024, father filed a motion and accompanying letter and affidavit, again
requesting that the district court terminate his child-support obligation. Relevant to this
appeal, father argued that he should be relieved of his child-support obligation under Minn.
Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 3, which addresses child-support calculations when both parenting
time and parental incomes are equal.
After a hearing, the district court denied father’s motion with prejudice. The district
court determined that Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 3, did not relieve father of his child-
support obligation because the 2021 stipulated order found that father and mother had
unequal incomes and therefore, the statute was inapplicable.
Father appeals.
DECISION
I. The district court did not err in determining that Minn. Stat. § 518A.36,
subd. 3, does not apply to father’s child-support obligation.

Father argues that the district court erred in determining that Minn. Stat. § 518A.36,
subd. 3, does not relieve him of his child-support obligation under the 2021 stipulated
order. “Statutory interpretation and the application of a statute to undisputed facts present
questions of law, which this court reviews de novo.” Jones v. Jarvinen, 814 N.W.2d 45,
4
47 (Minn. App. 2012). When conducting statutory interpretation, a court must first
“determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.” Dakota County v. Gillespie, 866
N.W.2d 905, 909 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). “A statute is ambiguous ‘when the
statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.’” Id. (quoting
State v. Fleck , 810 N.W.2d 303, 307 (Minn. 2012)). If a statute is unambiguous, courts
apply the statute’s plain meaning. Larson v. State, 790 N.W.2d 700, 703 (Minn. 2010).
Chapter 518A governs a district court’s calculation of child support. The statutory
provision at issue here states that “[i]f the parenting time is equal and the parental incomes
for determining child support of the parents also are equal, no basic support shall be paid
unless the court determines that the expenses for the child are not equally shared.” Minn.
Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 3 (emphasis added). Thus, to trigger application of the statute,
parenting time and parental incomes for determining child support must both be equal. 2
As the district court found, the 2021 stipulated order establishe s that, for purposes
of determining child support, father earns $8,551 per month and mother earns $2,988 per
month. Thus, the parental incomes are not equal. Father urges us to consider an “equitable
application” of the statute that considers father’s “full financial contributions” in addition

2 The statute references “parental income for determining child support,” as defined in
Minn. Stat. § 518A.26, subd. 15 (2024), rather than “gross income,” as defined in Minn.
Stat. § 518A.26, subd. 8 (2024). Before the district court, father argued that although a
disparity exists between the parties’ gross incomes, Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 3, does
not require him to pay child support because the parties share equal parenting time. The
district court similarly analyzed the parties’ gross incomes in deciding whether the statute
applied. Because our review is confined to the record and theories presented to the district
court, we also apply the parties’ gross incomes in considering father’s argument. Thiele v.
Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).
5
to his equal parenting time. But Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 3, requires equal parental
incomes, and we must apply the statute’s plain language. Larson, 790 N.W.2d at 703.
Because the 2021 stipulated order found that father’s and mother’s incomes are not
equal, the district court correctly determined that Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 3, does not
apply. The district court did not err in dismissing father’s motion to dismiss his child-
support obligation.
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing father’s motion with
prejudice.

Father also challenges the district court’s dismissal of his motion with prejudice. A
district court has “wide discretion in determining whether dismissals shall be with or
without prejudice.” Falkenstein v. Braufman , 88 N.W.2d 884, 889 (Minn. 1958). This
court “reviews a district court’s decision to dismiss a claim with prejudice under an abuse
of discretion standard.” Brazinsky v. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707, 712 (Minn. App. 2000).
“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or
improperly applying the law, or delivering a decision that is against logic and the facts on
record.” Woolsey v. Woolsey, 975 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2022).
Father argues that, “[g]iven the evolving nature of financial and custodial
circumstances, a dismissal with prejudice was an overly punitive measure” because it
precluded father from “seeking a fair reconsideration of his support obligation.” But father
offered no evidence in the district court of his evolving financial and custodial
6
circumstances.3 See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 (“The documents filed in the trial court,
the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on
appeal in all cases.”). Father also appears to argue that the district court erroneously
decided his motion on procedural grounds rather than on the merits. In its order, the district
court “assume[d] for the purpose of argument that [father’s] [m]otion [was] procedurally
proper” and “resolve[d] it on its merits.” The district court therefore denied father’s motion
on the merits, not on procedural grounds.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s
motion to dismiss his child-support obligation with prejudice.
4
Affirmed.

3 We observe that father is not prevented from seeking a modification of his child-support
obligation under Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2 (2024).

4 The county argues that father’s motion is procedurally defective and that father’s motion
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Because we affirm the district court on the merits, we need not
consider the county’s additional arguments.