may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Pamela Jean Longnecker, nee Janssen,
n/k/a Pamela J. Johnson, petitioner,
Dean Leonard Roeller,
Filed May 4, 1999
Affirmed as modified
Washington County District Court
File No. F69351336
Donna Rae Johnson, 700 St. Paul Building, 6 West Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Schumacher, Judge.
Appellant Dean Leonard Roeller (father) challenges the district court's alteration of the visitation schedule, its ruling allowing respondent Pamela Jean Longnecker, nee Janssen, n/k/a Pamela J. Johnson (mother) to make the child's daycare decisions, the finding of his income for support purposes, and his daycare and health insurance contributions. We affirm as modified.
An amended paternity judgment awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of their child and set a visitation schedule. Later visitation disputes were resolved in a mediated visitation agreement increasing father's visitation. In December 1997, the district court denied father's motion to modify the judgment's visitation schedule to conform to the mediated agreement. In February 1998, the district court denied father's motion to amend the December 1997 order. In April 1998, this court dismissed father's appeal of the February order stating it was not appealable and that the time to appeal the December order had expired. Mother later sought assorted relief in district court. In October 1998, the district court (a) gave mother the right to make daycare arrangements; (b) treated the visitation schedule in the October 1994 judgment as the existing visitation schedule and clarified the December 1997 order's reference thereto; (c) increased father's support obligation; and (d) ordered father to contribute to the child's daycare and health insurance costs. Father appeals.
1. Father challenges aspects of the December 1997 order. This court's April 1998 order ruled that the time to appeal the December 1997 order had previously expired. This court cannot extend the time to appeal. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 126.02. Therefore, the December 1997 order is not properly before this court. See Bongard v. Bongard, 342 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Minn. App. 1983) ("[t]ime limits on appeals are jurisdictional").
2. The October 1998 order forbids father from having overnight visitation with the child on Friday night, if the Friday night in question precedes mother's weekend with the child. Father alleges he is not allowed enough time with the child. Generally, the district court shall modify visitation when doing so would be in the child's best interests and visitation shall not be limited unless not doing so is likely to endanger the child's physical or emotional health or impair the child's emotional development. Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5 (1998). We review district court visitation decisions for an abuse of discretion. Manthei v. Manthei, 268 N.W.2d 45, 45-46 (Minn. 1978).
Here, in the district court father argued that a stable visitation schedule is needed because the parties cannot agree on when the child will be with which parent, that the parties disagree on whether Friday night is part of the weekend, and that the child is emotionally endangered by the instability in the visitation schedule. Because the district court's ruling regarding Friday visitation will avoid disputes about who will have visitation on Friday evenings, the ruling is consistent with the stability father admits is in the child's best interests. We affirm October 1998 order's visitation ruling.
3. Father alleges the district court should not have given mother the power to make daycare decisions. Father's use of his mother as the child's daycare provider contributed to the parties' visitation problems. Allowing mother to make daycare decisions will reduce the parties' opportunity for child-related conflict. Cf. Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 2 (1998) (joint custody awards require consideration of parties' ability to cooperate and resolve disputes). Also, we reject father's argument that, by giving mother the ability to make daycare decisions, his access to the child is eroded. The district court defined "daycare" as "time when neither parent or their spouse is available to take care of [the child]." If father is available to take care of the child, the child may not need daycare and mother's ability to make daycare decisions for the child does not necessarily limit father's access to the child.
4. Citing a letter from his employer, father alleges the district court overstated his income. A finding of "net income" for support purposes will be affirmed if it has a reasonable basis in fact. Strauch v. Strauch, 401 N.W.2d 444, 448 (Minn. App. 1987). Here, the finding of father's income is consistent with mother's estimate thereof and the letter from father's employer did not specify father's taxes and deductions. See Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) (1998) (listing allowable deductions for calculating net monthly income for support purposes). Absent an indication of how father's employer calculated father's income, the letter does not show the finding of father's income to be clearly erroneous.
Father also alleges the finding of his income overstates his income because it lacks a pension contribution. Father's affidavit states he currently has "no pension plan" but "would like to start an IRA." Because father currently lacks a retirement plan, we will not reverse the district court. Should father start a retirement plan, however, he is entitled to a reasonable pension deduction. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b)(iv) (1998).
5. Having reviewed the record and father's assertions, we cannot say the errors in the calculation of mother's net monthly income are sufficient to warrant a remand. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 61 (harmless error to be ignored); Wibbens v. Wibbens, 379 N.W.2d 225, 227 (Minn. App. 1985) (refusing to remand for de minimis error).
6. Because the amount of father's daycare contribution is consistent with the statutory formula, we see no abuse of the district court's discretion in setting father's day-care contribution. See Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) (reciting formula for calculating party's daycare contribution).
7. The district court found mother pays a monthly health insurance premium ($75) for the parties' child and set father's health care contribution at half that amount ($37.50). Father alleges this contribution is excessive because mother's health insurance premium covers herself, the child, mother's two other children, and her current husband. Father's assertion is consistent with the record. We modify father's monthly health insurance premium to $15.
Affirmed as modified.