Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 518A. CHILD SUPPORT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 518A.34 (2026)

Computation Of Child Support Obligations

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

(a) To determine the presumptive child support obligation of a parent, the court shall follow the procedure set forth in this section.

(b) To determine the obligor's basic support obligation, the court shall:

(1) determine the gross income of each parent under section 518A.29;

(2) calculate the parental income for determining child support (PICS) of each parent, by subtracting from the gross income the credit, if any, for each parent's nonjoint children under section 518A.33;

(3) determine the percentage contribution of each parent to the combined PICS by dividing the combined PICS into each parent's PICS;

(4) determine the combined basic support obligation by application of the guidelines in section 518A.35;

(5) determine each parent's share of the combined basic support obligation by multiplying the percentage figure from clause (3) by the combined basic support obligation in clause (4); and

(6) apply the parenting expense adjustment formula provided in section 518A.36 to determine the obligor's basic support obligation.

(c) If the parents have split custody of joint children, child support must be calculated for each joint child as follows:

(1) the court shall determine each parent's basic support obligation under paragraph (b) and include the amount of each parent's obligation in the court order. If the basic support calculation results in each parent owing support to the other, the court shall offset the higher basic support obligation with the lower basic support obligation to determine the amount to be paid by the parent with the higher obligation to the parent with the lower obligation. For the purpose of the cost-of-living adjustment required under section 518A.75, the adjustment must be based on each parent's basic support obligation prior to offset. For the purposes of this paragraph, "split custody" means that there are two or more joint children and each parent has at least one joint child more than 50 percent of the time;

(2) if each parent pays all child care expenses for at least one joint child, the court shall calculate child care support for each joint child as provided in section 518A.40. The court shall determine each parent's child care support obligation and include the amount of each parent's obligation in the court order. If the child care support calculation results in each parent owing support to the other, the court shall offset the higher child care support obligation with the lower child care support obligation to determine the amount to be paid by the parent with the higher obligation to the parent with the lower obligation; and

(3) if each parent pays all medical or dental insurance expenses for at least one joint child, medical support shall be calculated for each joint child as provided in section 518A.41. The court shall determine each parent's medical support obligation and include the amount of each parent's obligation in the court order. If the medical support calculation results in each parent owing support to the other, the court shall offset the higher medical support obligation with the lower medical support obligation to determine the amount to be paid by the parent with the higher obligation to the parent with the lower obligation. Unreimbursed and uninsured medical expenses are not included in the presumptive amount of support owed by a parent and are calculated and collected as provided in section 518A.41.

(d) The court shall determine the child care support obligation for the obligor as provided in section 518A.40.

(e) The court shall determine the medical support obligation for each parent as provided in section 518A.41. Unreimbursed and uninsured medical expenses are not included in the presumptive amount of support owed by a parent and are calculated and collected as described in section 518A.41.

(f) The court shall determine each parent's total child support obligation by adding together each parent's basic support, child care support, and health care coverage obligations as provided in this section.

(g) If Social Security benefits or veterans' benefits are received by one parent as a representative payee for a joint child based on the other parent's eligibility, the court shall subtract the amount of benefits from the other parent's net child support obligation, if any. Any benefit received by the obligee for the benefit of the joint child based upon the obligor's disability or past earnings in any given month in excess of the child support obligation must not be treated as an arrearage payment or a future payment.

(h) The final child support order shall separately designate the amount owed for basic support, child care support, and medical support. If applicable, the court shall use the self-support adjustment and minimum support adjustment under section 518A.42 to determine the obligor's child support obligation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 94× “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 16× “2 Minn.Stat. § 518A.34(a). Each parent’s gross income is the starting point for this calculation.”
Cnty. of Grant v. Koser, 809 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 16× “Indeed, under section 518A.34 the district court must adjust the "basic support" obligation-which is computed under section 518A.”
Richards v. Reiter, 796 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 518A.34 (2010), child support is a function of the parents’ combined incomes.”
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh, 775 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “]” Minn.Stat. § 518A.34(b)(l) (2008). Subject to exclusions and deductions not at issue here, gross income includes “any form of periodic payment to an individual .”
In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 518A.34(a), (b) (2014). “[G]ross income includes .”
In re the Matter of: Birch Benjamin Hansen v. Suzanne Christine Todnem, 891 N.W.2d 51 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 518A.34 (2016). Here, the district court calculated the parents’ combined PICS as $16,624 and determined that Hansen’s income made up 65% of the PICS.”
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele, 814 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 518A.34(b)(l) (2010). Under section 518A.”
Cnty. of Dakota, ex rel., Michelle Marie Hinz v. Bryan Arthur ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “And, in calculating a parent’s presumptive child-support obligation, the district court is required to subtract SSDI derivative benefits and apportioned VA benefits that are paid to the obligee on behalf of the joint children.”
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ostergaard Stillwell v. Harry Alan Stillwell (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “5 After the district court determined father’s imputed income of 150% of the minimum wage, it calculated his child-support obligation according to Minn. Stat. § 518A.34 (2014) and issued an order under Minn.”
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(1) (2014). Gross income includes “salaries, wages, commissions, .”
In re the Marriage of: Daria Vladimirovna Tinaza v. Justin Andrew Tinaza (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Finally, mother argues that the district court abused its discretion by basing mother’s child-support obligation on the guidelines set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518A.34 (2014), rather than Minn.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(a) — 6 cases
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2013). “2 Minn.Stat. § 518A.34(a). Each parent’s gross income is the starting point for this calculation.”
In re the Matter of: Jill Marie Newstrand v. Jamison Robert Arend, 869 N.W.2d 681 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 518A.34(a), (b) (2014). “[G]ross income includes .”
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
In re the Marriage of: Emily-Jean Chinwendu Aguocha v. Ikechukwu Hisa Aguocha (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher v. Olga Sergeyevna Bessenbacher, Respondent,... (Minn. Ct. App. 2023).
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b) — 1 case
In re the Marriage of: Jacob Anthony Pulsifer v. Julie Ann Pulsifer (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(1) — 5 cases
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ostergaard Stillwell v. Harry Alan Stillwell (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “5 After the district court determined father’s imputed income of 150% of the minimum wage, it calculated his child-support obligation according to Minn. Stat. § 518A.34 (2014) and issued an order under Minn.”
Ramsey Cnty., Laniesha M. Williams v. Nathan D. Washington, Sr. (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(1) (2014). Gross income includes “salaries, wages, commissions, .”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(2) — 2 cases
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2013). “2 Minn.Stat. § 518A.34(a). Each parent’s gross income is the starting point for this calculation.”
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(3) — 3 cases
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2013). “2 Minn.Stat. § 518A.34(a). Each parent’s gross income is the starting point for this calculation.”
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(1) (2014). Gross income includes “salaries, wages, commissions, .”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(4) — 1 case
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(5) — 1 case
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(6) — 5 cases
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
Cnty. of Grant v. Koser, 809 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). “Indeed, under section 518A.34 the district court must adjust the "basic support" obligation-which is computed under section 518A.”
Cnty. of Dakota, ex rel., Michelle Marie Hinz v. Bryan Arthur ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2025). “And, in calculating a parent’s presumptive child-support obligation, the district court is required to subtract SSDI derivative benefits and apportioned VA benefits that are paid to the obligee on behalf of the joint children.”
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Lee Hedberg v. Benjamin Carl Hedberg, Cnty. of Chisago, intervenor (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
In re the Marriage of: Any K. Arensberg v. Nicholas Shamus Arensberg (Minn. Ct. App. 2024).
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(l) — 4 cases
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele, 837 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2013). “2 Minn.Stat. § 518A.34(a). Each parent’s gross income is the starting point for this calculation.”
Marriage of Welsh v. Welsh, 775 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). “]” Minn.Stat. § 518A.34(b)(l) (2008). Subject to exclusions and deductions not at issue here, gross income includes “any form of periodic payment to an individual .”
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele, 814 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). “” Minn.Stat. § 518A.34(b)(l) (2010). Under section 518A.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(c) — 1 case
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(d) — 2 cases
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(1) (2014). Gross income includes “salaries, wages, commissions, .”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(e) — 1 case
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(f) — 3 cases
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
Cnty. of Grant v. Koser, 809 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). “Indeed, under section 518A.34 the district court must adjust the "basic support" obligation-which is computed under section 518A.”
Cnty. of Dakota, ex rel., Michelle Marie Hinz v. Bryan Arthur ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2025). “And, in calculating a parent’s presumptive child-support obligation, the district court is required to subtract SSDI derivative benefits and apportioned VA benefits that are paid to the obligee on behalf of the joint children.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(g) — 3 cases
Cnty. of Grant v. Koser, 809 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). “Indeed, under section 518A.34 the district court must adjust the "basic support" obligation-which is computed under section 518A.”
In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.34. On the theory that this obligor made an “overpayment” and thus his children received more child support dollars than was equitable, the dissent asserts that today’s decision will produce an “absurd and inequitable result.”
Cnty. of Dakota, ex rel., Michelle Marie Hinz v. Bryan Arthur ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2025). “And, in calculating a parent’s presumptive child-support obligation, the district court is required to subtract SSDI derivative benefits and apportioned VA benefits that are paid to the obligee on behalf of the joint children.”
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.