Packer v. Holm
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1988, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pitkin v. Gross (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
- Marriage of Wollschlager v. Wollschlager (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION
This is an appeal of a support order made in connection with a judgment of paternity pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 257.66, subd. 3 (Supp. 1983). Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in awarding child support. We affirm.
*507 FACTS
On March 15, 1984, respondent admitted paternity of the child born to appellant Packer on September 19,1981 by a declaration of parentage.
On May 16, 1984, a Ramsey County referee recommended respondent pay Packer $125.00 per month for child support. This recommendation was confirmed by the district court, family court division, on May 18, 1984. Respondent had a net monthly income of $1,350.00 and was paying $300.00 per month for the support of his child from a prior marriage.
The district court awarded monthly child support of $125.00. Appellant requested review of the May 18, 1984 order. The order was confirmed on September 6, 1984 and the mother and the County appealed.
ISSUE
Did the district court abuse its discretion in the amount awarded as child support?
ANALYSIS
The matter of child support is within the discretion of the trial court. Unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the trial court’s decision will not be reversed. Reck v. Reck, 346 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) (citing Peterson v. Peterson, 304 Minn. 578, 231 N.W.2d 85 (1975); Hennessy v. Stelton, 302 Minn. 550, 224 N.W.2d 926 (1974)).
The child support guidelines, Minn.Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5 (Supp. 1983), normally apply to all child support cases. See Halper v. Halper, 348 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); Minn.Stat. § 518.17, subd. 5 (Supp. 1983); Minn.Stat. § 257.66, subd. 3 (Supp. 1983). Minn.Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(c) specifically provides that previous support orders may be considered if the obligator is paying them.
The district court determined $125.00 as the amount of child support appellant was entitled to receive and considered respondent’s pre-existing support obligation from the prescribed guideline amount for two children at respondent’s income level. Where the father is supporting children in two different households, the guidelines cannot be rigidly applied. Thus, departure by the trial court was justifiable under these circumstances. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of child support.
DECISION
The district court’s order of September 6, 1984, requiring respondent to pay $125.00 per month for child support is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.