This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. §subd. 3 (1994).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C5-96-638

Hennepin County and Lisa Michelle Gross,
Respondents,

vs.

Marvin Davis,
Appellant.

Filed August 27, 1996
Affirmed
Willis, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. PA23590

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, James Bares, Assistant County Attorney, C-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for Respondents)

Marvin Davis, 5600 - 14th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55417 (Pro Se Appellant)

Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Willis, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

WILLIS, Judge
Marvin Davis appeals the district court's order affirming a referee's child support order, arguing that he is entitled to a deduction from his monthly income for payments voluntarily made to support another child. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N

Respondent Hennepin County sought an administrative increase of appellant Davis's child support obligation for Davis and respondent Lisa Gross's minor child. The family court referee ordered an increase in child support from $104 to $225, based on Davis's monthly income. In calculating Davis's income, the referee refused to deduct $100 monthly payments Davis voluntarily makes to support another child living in Colorado. The referee also did not deduct medical insurance premiums from Davis's income. The district court affirmed the referee's order. 1

Davis argues that the district court should have deducted from his monthly income his payments for the support of his child living in Colorado when determining his support obligation for his and Gross's child. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) (Supp. 1995), provides that "net income" for purposes of establishing guidelines child support includes "[t]otal monthly income less *A Child Support or Maintenance Order that is Currently Being Paid." The record contains no evidence that Davis's monthly payments for his child in Colorado are made pursuant to a child support order, and in his short letter argument Davis admits that the payments are "voluntary." Because the statute allows deductions from monthly income only for payments made pursuant to child support orders and Davis's payments for the support of his child in Colorado are not made pursuant to a court order, the district court properly refused to deduct the payments from Davis's monthly income.
Davis also challenges on appeal the referee's failure to deduct monthly medical insurance premiums from his income when calculating his support obligation. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, we dismiss that issue.
Affirmed .


1 On appeal, Davis challenged a 1991 paternity judgment and asked for a blood test. By special term order dated May 28, 1996, this court dismissed that part of Davis's appeal.