This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Countryman, n/k/a Schroeder,
County of Anoka, Intervenor,
Filed March 13, 2001
Anoka County District Court
File No. FX9712841
Elizabeth A. Schading, 400 Northtown Financial Plaza, 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55433; and
Bethany A. Fountain Lindberg, Assistant Anoka County Attorney, Anoka County Government Center, 2100 Third Avenue, 7th Floor, Anoka, Minnesota 55303 (for joint-appellants Kimberly Countryman n/k/a Kimberly Schroeder and County of Anoka)
Bernard Countryman, 10155 Pierce Street NE, Blaine, MN 55434 (respondent pro se)
Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Hanson, Judge, and, Poritsky, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
In this administrative action seeking reimbursement for public assistance provided to dependent children, appellants Kimberly A. Schroeder and Anoka County challenge the child support magistrate’s modification of respondent Bernard E. Countryman’s child support obligations. Specifically, appellants contend that the magistrate erred in (1) calculating respondent’s average net monthly income, (2) concluding that respondent was “not voluntarily underemployed,” and (3) deviating downward from the child support guidelines. We reverse and remand.
Respondent Bernard E. Countryman and appellant Kimberly Schroeder were married on June 17, 1987, and are the parents of four minor children. The couple separated in July 1997. Since that time, Schroeder has had physical custody of the children and has received public assistance from Anoka County.
Since the initial child support hearing on March 31, 1998, this case has generated multiple and conflicting child support orders, virtually alternating between increases and decreases. A key issue in these orders has been whether Countryman’s decline in income resulted from voluntary underemployment.
Thus, prior to an earlier appeal to this court, on April 27, 1998, the administrative law judge (ALJ) ordered temporary child support in the amount of $375; on July 1, 1998, the ALJ ordered permanent child support of $186; and on December 10, 1998, the ALJ found that a change in circumstances made the existing order unfair and increased child support to $413. The last determination was based on imputing additional income to Countryman, who the ALJ found was voluntarily underemployed. Countryman appealed the December 10, 1998, order and this court reversed, stating that the ALJ’s findings were inadequate to support an increase. Countryman v. Countryman, No. C8-88-213 (Minn. App. July 27, 1999). The July 1, 1998, order setting child support at $186 was reinstated until the ALJ issued a new order. Id.
On remand, the child support magistrate found that a change in circumstances from the July 1, 1998, order made that order unfair and increased child support to $558 beginning November 1, 1999. That calculation was based on imputing additional income to Countryman as being voluntarily underemployed. The magistrate confirmed that Countryman was obligated to pay $186 in child support from January 1, 1999, through April 30, 1999, and $413 from May 1, 1999, through October 31, 1999. On February 23, 2000, the district court granted review and remanded several issues back to the magistrate for new or additional findings. The magistrate issued a new order on March 21, 2000, which suspended the child support payments required from May 1, 1999, through July 31, 1999, due to Countryman’s unemployment during this period, but ordered Countryman to pay $558 in child support beginning on August 1, 1999. That order, again, found that Countryman was voluntarily underemployed. No review of that order was sought and it governs Countryman’s child support obligations to March 1, 2000.
In the meantime, on February 24, 2000, Countryman filed a motion to modify his child support payments, which was assigned to a different magistrate and was heard two days after the March 21, 2000, order. On May 15, 2000, this magistrate found that Countryman was not voluntarily underemployed, even though Countryman’s actual income was less than at the time of the earlier orders (finding voluntary underemployment), and that a change in circumstances made the March 21, 2000, order unfair. The magistrate reduced Countryman’s monthly child support to $100, based on a downward deviation from the statutory guideline amount of $397. Appellants Schroeder and Anoka County filed a Motion for Review with the district court, but the magistrate’s decision was affirmed on June 29, 2000. This appeal followed.
As the recitation of this procedural history reveals, this case has suffered from inconsistent approaches. In spite of our desire to reach some finality, we must again reverse and remand for further proceedings because of deficiencies in the magistrate’s findings.
We will reverse an order regarding the modification of child support only if the court abused its broad discretion by resolving the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts in the record. Gully v. Gully, 599 N.W.2d 814, 820 (Minn. 1999). This court applies the same standard of review to an order issued by a child-support magistrate as it would to an order issued by a district court. Brazinsky vs. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn. App. 2000).
Appellants claim that the magistrate’s reduction of child support was erroneous because he used improper deductions to calculate Countryman’s average net monthly income. Specifically, appellants contend that the magistrate’s finding that “[t]he Obligor receives an average net monthly income from wages of $1019 after [deducting] $277 for federal and state taxes and social security” reflects an S-1 income tax deduction, whereas the evidence in the record indicates that a lesser S-3 deduction was necessary. We are unable to reconcile the magistrate’s sparse findings with the record evidence regarding Countryman’s average monthly income and tax and social security withholdings. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this issue for findings regarding Countryman’s net monthly income that are consistent with the record.
Appellants next challenge the magistrate’s reduction of child support to the extent it was based on the finding that Countryman was “not voluntarily underemployed.” Specifically, appellants contend that (1) the evidence does not support this finding and (2) the magistrate failed to address the statutorily required factors.
A parent who has changed employment, for a reduced compensation, is not “voluntarily” underemployed if that new job
(1) is temporary and will ultimately lead to an increase in income; or (2) represents a bona fide career change that outweighs the adverse effect of that parent's diminished income on the child.
Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d) (2000). At the time of the parties’ separation, Countryman was employed as a nursing assistant at the Veterans Administration Hospital. At the time of the previous order of March 21, 2000, Countryman was employed as a truck driver at reduced actual income. At the time of the order currently under review, Countryman was employed as a cashier at a service station, at further reduced actual income. There is no evidence in this record that Countryman’s current employment is temporary and will lead to increased income, or that it is a bona fide career change that outweighs the adverse effect on his income. Accordingly, Countryman did not meet his burden of proving that he was not voluntarily underemployed. See id. (stating that the obligor has the burden of proving that the job is temporary and is a bona fide career change that outweighs the adverse effect of the income).
Moreover, the magistrate failed to address the statutory factors listed in subdivision 5(b)(d) before concluding that Countryman was not voluntarily underemployed. See Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d). We reverse and remand this issue for findings consistent with the record and the statutory factors required by Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d).
Finally, appellants contend that the magistrate erred in deviating downward from the child support guidelines because he (1) failed to make detailed, explanatory findings, (2) did not apply the proper standard of law and (3) failed to consider payments made to Countryman by his mother.
Child support is generally calculated in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Minn. Stat. § 518.551 (2000), which establish a "rebuttable presumption and shall be used in all cases." Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(i)(2000); see § 518.551, subd. 5(b) ("The court shall derive a specific dollar amount for child support" using the table provided in the guidelines). When a district court deviates from the guidelines, it must provide written findings (1) stating the amount required by the guidelines before any deviation, (2) specifying the reason for the deviation and (3) demonstrating how any deviation specifically addresses the factors listed in Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(c) and serves the best interests of the child. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(i). Wende v. Wende, 386 N.W.2d 271, 275 (Minn. App. 1986).
The magistrate erred in deviating from the child support guidelines because he did not issue findings demonstrating how any deviation specifically addresses the factors listed in subdivision 5(c). See Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(i). The magistrate made findings regarding the earnings, income, and resources of both parties, but there is no indication that he considered the other five statutory factors in section 518.551, subdivision 5(c). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this issue for findings consistent with Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subds. 5(c) and (i). See Kahn v. Tronnier, 547 N.W.2d 425, 429 (Minn. App. 1996) (remanding above-guideline support obligation where required findings were absent), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).
The magistrate also applied the wrong legal standard in deviating downward from the guidelines. The magistrate made the following factual finding:
The child support amount ordered is $100 and is a deviation from the Minnesota Child Support Guidelines because failure to deviate would continue the unreasonable hardship for the Obligor that has long existed.
(Emphasis added). In cases seeking reimbursement of public assistance, a court may deviate downward from the guidelines only if it finds “that the failure to deviate downward would impose an extreme hardship on the obligor.” Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(j) (2000) (emphasis added). We do not know whether the magistrate intended “unreasonable” to satisfy the statutory requirement of “extreme,” but the words are not synonymous, and the magistrate’s findings do not provide any basis for us to independently determine that the extreme hardship requirement has been met. Accordingly, we remand for findings that address the precise statutory criteria, whether guideline child support would impose an extreme hardship on Countryman. See Ver Kuilen v Ver Kuilen, 578 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn. App. 1998) (reversing and remanding the district court’s downward deviation from the child support guidelines where mother’s child support rights were assigned to the county and the district court did not make a finding of extreme hardship).
Finally, appellants contend that the magistrate should have considered the money received by Countryman from his mother before deviating downward from the guidelines. Moreover, Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(c)(1) (2000) requires that the court, when determining whether to deviate from guidelines, consider “all earnings, income, and resources of the parents” (emphasis added).
Here, the magistrate made the following general finding:
Obligor’s mother supplements his ability to pay his obligations through a long-standing, ongoing “loan” which now exceeds $25,000. She also manages his finances by depositing his checks and paying his bills.
The magistrate did not specifically refer to these supplements as part of the downward deviation. Yet, the previous magistrate, in refusing to deviate from guideline child support in the March 21, 2000, order (from which modification is now sought), found that these supplemental payments contributed additional resources that weighed in favor of following the guidelines. That determination was not appealed. On remand, these supplements should be part of any consideration of a downward deviation from guidelines.
Because (1) the magistrate’s findings regarding Countryman’s average net monthly income cannot be tied to the record, (2) the magistrate’s conclusion that Countryman was not voluntarily underemployed is not supported by the record and did not address the factors listed in § 518.551, subd. 5(b)(d) and (3) the magistrate deviated from the child support guidelines without applying the factors listed in § 518.55, subd. 5(c) or the proper legal standard, and without considering Countryman’s other resources from his mother, we reverse and remand for findings consistent with the record and the law. On such remand, the district court is directed to consolidate this file with the parties dissolution action, Anoka County file number F2-97-11358.
Reversed and remanded.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
 In Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1999), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the administrative child support process created by Minn. Stat. § 518.5511 (1996) was unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers. However, it also concluded that the process would continue until July 1, 1999. Therefore, the use of ALJs prior to July 1, 1999, was proper.
 On April 8, 1999, the judgment and decree was entered in the parties separate marital dissolution proceeding. On the matter of child support, that decree established child support at $413 commencing January 1, 1999, and incorporated the December 10, 1998, order from this administrative proceeding. The magistrate, in its order of March 21, 2000, recognized the child support determination from the Decree but modified it for change of circumstances effective August 1, 1999.