§
Subdivision 1.Crime defined.
Whoever is legally obligated to provide court-ordered support to a spouse or child, whether or not the child's custody has been granted to another, and knowingly omits and fails to do so is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
§
Subd. 2.Gross misdemeanor violation.
A person who violates subdivision 1 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both, if:
(1) the violation continues for a period in excess of 90 days but not more than 180 days; or
(2) the person is in arrears in court-ordered child support or maintenance payments, or both, in an amount equal to or greater than six times but less than nine times the person's total monthly support and maintenance payments.
§
Subd. 2a.Felony violation.
A person who violates subdivision 1 is guilty of a felony and upon conviction may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both, if:
(1) the violation continues for a period in excess of 180 days; or
(2) the person is in arrears in court-ordered child support or maintenance payments, or both, in an amount equal to or greater than nine times the person's total monthly support and maintenance payments.
§
Subd. 2b.Attempt to obtain contempt order as prerequisite to prosecution.
A person may not be charged with violating this section unless there has been an attempt to obtain a court order holding the person in contempt for failing to pay support or maintenance under chapter 518 or 518A. This requirement is satisfied by a showing that reasonable attempts have been made at service of the order.
§
Subd. 5.Venue.
A person who violates this section may be prosecuted and tried in the county in which the support obligor resides or in the county in which the obligee or the child resides.
§
Subd. 7.Conditions of work release; probation violation.
Upon conviction under this section, a defendant may obtain work release only upon the imposition of an automatic income withholding order, and may be required to post a bond in avoidance of jail time and conditioned upon payment of all court-ordered support owed. Nonpayment of court-ordered support is a violation of any probation granted following conviction under subdivision 2a.
§
Subd. 8.Defense.
It is an affirmative defense to criminal liability under this section if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the omission and failure to provide court-ordered support were with lawful excuse.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case:
State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2014).
State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 122× “Appellant Larry Allen Nelson challenges his felony conviction under Minn.Stat. § 609.375, subds. 1, 2a(l) (2012), which criminalizes a person’s omission and failure “to provide care and support” to a spouse or child when legally obligated to do so.”
State v. Burg, 648 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 10× “Appellant Douglas Gerard Burg was convicted of felony nonsupport of a child in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.375, subd. 2a (1998). Burg’s conviction was based on his failure to pay child support to his former wife Lisa Burg (Lisa) from May 1995 to October 1999.”
State v. Nelson, 823 N.W.2d 908 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 28× “Appellant challenges his felony conviction of failing to provide care and support for his two minor children in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.375. Appellant argues that the district court (1) erred by interpreting the statute as providing that the state could obtain a conviction…”
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 4× “”); Minn Stat 609.375(8) (“It is an affirmative defense to criminal liability [for nonsupport of spouse or child] if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the omission and failure to provide care and support were with lawful excuse.”
State v. Nelson, 671 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 14× “On appeal from his conviction of criminal nonsupport of a child, appellant argues that Minn.Stat. § 609.375, subd. 2b requires the state to attempt to obtain a contempt order against an obligor for failure to pay child support during the time period specified in the complaint.”
State v. Krejci, 458 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 4× “12 (Non-Support of Wife or Child) from Minn.Stat. § 609.375 (1971). [5] "Minnesota reporting rates increased more than 500% from 1966 to 1978, with the number of counties filing reports rising from 18 to 80 (Minnesota Department of Public Welfare, undated).”
In Re Storberg, 94 B.R. 144 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1988).
· cites it 2× “02 providing special contempt powers in the case of disobedience of court ordered child support orders, Minn.Stat. § 609.375 making it a crime, under certain circumstances, to fail to pay child support, Minn.”
Hepfel v. Bashaw, 279 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 1979).
“5 Finally, the social stigma resulting from an adjudication of paternity cannot be ignored. *346 The motivation of the county and state on behalf of its welfare departments to insist that the determinations of paternity be made with care and precision is understandably…”
Gorrie v. Heckler, 624 F. Supp. 85 (D. Minnesota 1985).
· cites it 2× “17 (codification of common law presumption that parents have the financial responsibility for supporting their minor children); Minn.Stat. § 609.375 (under Minnesota Law, all children have a right to parental support).”
State v. Burg, 633 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “In October 1999, Burg was charged with felony non-support of a child, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.375, subd. 2a (1998), and constructive criminal contempt, in violation of Minn.”
Cnty. of Hennepin Ex Rel. Bartlow v. Brinkman, 378 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 1985).
“In addition to his financial interests, the defendant, if found to be the father, is also indirectly threatened with loss of liberty, since incarceration may be imposed for criminal nonsupport under § 609.375. * * * Finally, the social stigma resulting from an adjudication of…”
In Re Marriage of Crockarell, 631 N.W.2d 829 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Appellant argues that because his testimony may have exposed him to criminal liability for failure to pay child support and the information "could have been obtained through the use of documents," the district court erred in sanctioning him for his invocation of his Fifth…”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.375(8) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012).
“”); Minn Stat 609.375(8) (“It is an affirmative defense to criminal liability [for nonsupport of spouse or child] if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the omission and failure to provide care and support were with lawful excuse.”
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.