Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 518. MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 518.612 (2026)

Independence Of Provisions Of Decree Or Temporary Order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Failure by a party to make support payments is not a defense to:

(1) interference with parenting time; or

(2) without the permission of the court or the other parent, removing a child from this state.

Interference with parenting time or taking a child from this state without permission of the court or the other parent is not a defense to nonpayment of support. If a party fails to make support payments, interferes with parenting time, or removes a child from the state without permission of the court or the other parent, the other party may petition the court for an appropriate order.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1981–1993 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Southwell v. Chamberland, 361 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Southwell v. Chamberland, 361 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 5× “That statute reads, in part: Nor is interference with visitation rights or taking a child from this state without permission of the court or the noncustodial parent a defense to nonpayment of support.”
State of Wis. Ex Rel. Southwell v. Chamberland, 349 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “We note the consistency of the above statute with Minn.Stat. § 518.612 (1982), entitled “Independence of Provisions of Decree or Temporary Order”: Nor is interference with visitation rights or taking a child from this state without permission of the court or the noncustodial…”
In Re the Welfare of J.D.N., 504 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 518.612 (1990); see England v.”
State on Behalf of McDonnell v. McCutcheon, 337 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 2× “1981), we stated that Minn. Stat. § 518.612 (1982) does not prohibit a court from raising or considering restriction of visitation rights or failure to pay support in a proceeding to enforce support obligations.”
England v. England, 337 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 2× “” Similarly, Minn.Stat. § 518.612 (1982) states: Failure by a party to make support payments is not a defense to: interference with visitation rights; or without the permission of the court or the noncustodial parent removing a child from this state.”
Cnty. of Hennepin v. Boyle, 450 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 10× “The parties have addressed the importance of Minn.Stat. § 518.612 (1988), which precludes interference with visitation rights as a defense to nonpayment of support.”
Marriage of Miller v. Miller, 370 N.W.2d 481 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 518.612 (1982); State of Wisconsin ex rel.”
St. George v. St. George, 304 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “We are not unmindful of Minn.Stat. § 518.612 (1980), providing that restriction of visitation rights or the failure to pay support cannot be used defensively in a proceeding to enforce support obligations or visitation rights.”
State Ex Rel, Sauer v. Hellesvig, 376 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 15× “Hellesvig argues that Minn. Stat. § 518.612 (1984) which precludes interference with visitation rights as a defense to child support obligations, is unconstitutional as applied to him.”
State Ex Rel. Doucette v. Kraskey, 496 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 518.612 (1990); Minn. Ch. 518A (1990).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.