Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 518A.36 (2026)

Parenting Expense Adjustment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.General.

(a) The parenting expense adjustment under this section reflects the presumption that while exercising parenting time, a parent is responsible for and incurs costs of caring for the child, including, but not limited to, food, clothing, transportation, recreation, and household expenses. Every child support order shall specify the percentage of parenting time granted to or presumed for each parent. For purposes of this section, the percentage of parenting time means the percentage of time a child is scheduled to spend with the parent during a calendar year according to a court order averaged over a two-year period. Parenting time includes time with the child whether it is designated as visitation, physical custody, or parenting time. The percentage of parenting time may be determined by calculating the number of overnights or overnight equivalents that a parent spends with a child pursuant to a court order. For purposes of this section, overnight equivalents are calculated by using a method other than overnights if the parent has significant time periods on separate days where the child is in the parent's physical custody and under the direct care of the parent but does not stay overnight. The court may consider the age of the child in determining whether a child is with a parent for a significant period of time.

(b) If there is not a court order awarding parenting time, the court shall determine the child support award without consideration of the parenting expense adjustment. If a parenting time order is subsequently issued or is issued in the same proceeding, then the child support order shall include application of the parenting expense adjustment.

Subd. 2.Calculation of parenting expense adjustment.

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given:

(1) "parent A" means the parent with whom the child or children will spend the least number of overnights under the court order; and

(2) "parent B" means the parent with whom the child or children will spend the greatest number of overnights under the court order.

(b) The court shall apply the following formula to determine which parent is the obligor and calculate the basic support obligation:

(1) raise to the power of three the approximate number of annual overnights the child or children will likely spend with parent A;

(2) raise to the power of three the approximate number of annual overnights the child or children will likely spend with parent B;

(3) multiply the result of clause (1) times parent B's share of the combined basic support obligation as determined in section 518A.34, paragraph (b), clause (5);

(4) multiply the result of clause (2) times parent A's share of the combined basic support obligation as determined in section 518A.34, paragraph (b), clause (5);

(5) subtract the result of clause (4) from the result of clause (3); and

(6) divide the result of clause (5) by the sum of clauses (1) and (2).

(c) If the result is a negative number, parent A is the obligor, the negative number becomes its positive equivalent, and the result is the basic support obligation. If the result is a positive number, parent B is the obligor and the result is the basic support obligation.

Subd. 3.Calculation of basic support when parenting time is equal.

If 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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Marriage of Hesse v. Hesse, 778 N.W.2d 98 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marriage of Hesse v. Hesse, 778 N.W.2d 98 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 17× “See Minn.Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 1(a) (2006). After a hearing, a CSM denied father’s motion, concluding that because father had not exercised the two-week vacation parenting time granted in the judgment, that period should not be included in his parenting-time allocation for…”

In re the Marriage of: Justin David Shearer v. Mandy Jane Shearer, 891 N.W.2d 72 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 2. The statute identifies two levels of adjustment for obligors who parent more than 10% but less than 50% of the time (one category for parenting time from 10% to 45% of the time, and another for parenting time of 45.”

Marriage of Jones v. Jarvinen, 814 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 1(a) (2010); Hesse v.”

In re the Matter of: Dakota Cnty., Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie, 866 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. § 518A.36. 9 Stat. § 518A.31(c).”

Cnty. of Dakota, ex rel., Michelle Marie Hinz v. Bryan Arthur ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “” Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 1(a) (2024).”

In re the Marriage of: William John Braun v. Candida Marie Braun (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “She argues that because the stipulated judgment uses a parenting time calculation other than those recognized in Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 1(a) (2014), the calculation method is not legally permissible.”

In Re the Marriage of: Susan Kay Schneider v. Michael John Schneider, Lyon Cnty., intervenor (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Therefore, the support obligor is entitled to a parenting-expense adjustment of his or her support obligation based on the percentage of parenting time allocated to the obligor. Id., subd. 2 (2014). The district court applies the percentage of parenting time allocated, within…”

In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Lee Hedberg v. Benjamin Carl Hedberg, Cnty. of Chisago, intervenor (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 1(a) (2014).”

In re the Marriage of: Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld, f/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Hare v. Robert Russell Hare (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 2(1) (2014).”

In re the Marriage of: Todd James Lindsey v. Shirley June Lindsey (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The second exception requires the district court to make “specific written findings” to overcome the presumption that appellant is not the obligor.”

In re the Marriage of: Asma Javed v. Rizwan Siwani (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 1(a) (2022).”

In Re the Custody of: M.-T. L. B. & S.-A. L. B. Rang Ngoc Bang v. Yenthao Thi Vo (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “Minn. Stat. § 518A.36, subd. 3 (2012). Thus, if the CCSO is $1,000, and the obligor’s proportionate share is 65%, or $650, having 45% of parenting-time results in an obligation of $572 ($650 minus 12%, or $78), but having 45.”

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.