STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CASE TYPE: FAMILY
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Court File Number: 19AV-FA-11-1273
IV-D Case No: 0015184545-01
In Re the Matter of:

Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki,

Petitioner, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO MODIFY
CHILD SUPPORT

David V Rucki

Respondent
________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA}
{ss
COUNTY OF DAKOTA }
This matter is a child support action commenced in Dakota County, in front of Magistrate Maria Pastoor,
of District Court. On May 9, 2018, Dakota County filed a child support order to reinstate the support
order terms of October 13, 2016 as of June 1, 2018. The terms of that order direct Petitioner, Sandra Sue
Grazzini-Rucki, to pay $975.00 per month as and for her child support obligation.
I, Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, make this affidavit in support of my motion and motion to modify child
support and to vacate the recent order, or in alternative, stay of proceedings pending appeal; and motion
to remove the suspension and reinstate my driver's license and Passport. In addition, I am asking for
forgiveness of arrears of past due child support.
For the following reasons:
1. Minn. Stat 518A.39 permits modification of obligation orders when the terms of the order are
unreasonable or unfair. The recent order dated May 7, 2018, is both unreasonable and unfair, for the
reasons described within this Affidavit (below).
2. Under the “Findings of Fact” three joint minor children are listed as subjects for this child support
order. The child support order was originally assessed to include all five children in the amount of $975.
Support has not been adjusted since emancipation of three of the children and has remained the same
amount. The current order is based on an amount that is improperly assessed. Emancipation of children is
a factor that justifies modification of child support.
3. As indicated by the court order dated May 7, 2018, “The Mother was not present or represented by
counsel” when the child support hearing initiating this order was held. I was not notified nor served with
notice of the child support hearing that resulted in this recent court order, which is a due
process violation.
4. At the time of the hearing, I was incarcerated in MCF Shakopee. The Court was aware of this fact, as
indicated in the address listed on the order. Thus, the Court had the ability to send me notice of hearing
but failed to do so.
5. The Declaration of Service attached to the court order indicates that I was served with the court order
on May 9, 2018 – two days after the scheduled hearing. This was the only notice i received after the
decision had been made, and thus, I was denied the ability to present evidence and arguments.
6. I was denied due process because of the Court's failure to give notice of the hearing. The order issued
against me is both unfair and reasonable.
7. The United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution afford identical due process
protections. Boutin v. LaFleur, 591 N.W.2d 711, 716 (Minn. 1999). Both provide that government cannot
act to deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amends. V,
XIV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7. “[S]ubstantive due process protects individuals from ‘certain arbitrary,
wrongful government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’” In re
Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867, 872 (Minn. 1999) (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S. Ct.
975, 983 (1990)).
8. The Eighth Circuit explained "a plaintiff asserting a Substantive Due Process claim must establish that
the government action complained of is 'truly irrational' that is 'something more than ... arbitrary,
capricious, or in violation of state law."' Anderson v. Douglas County, 4 F.3d 574, 577 (8th Cir.1993).
Without being served with Notice to Intent, and without being allowed to present evidence or argument,
there can be no rational argument to suspend and flag my driver's license.
9. There has been a substantial change since the court orders issued on both Oct 16th 2016 and May 9th
2018, that being I applied for and now receive food support/SNAP. SNAP is a means tested program,
indicating the recipient is impoverished and in need of assistance with food for their survival. This
change makes the order unfair in its current form.
10. In addition, I receive Medical Assistance. I do not have the means to pay for my own food or medical
care or provide self-support. As such, I am requesting modification. According to Minnesota state law,
modification of child support can be obtained based on receipt of public assistance.
11. I have been dealing with legal issues for the last three years regarding a criminal matter, which
includes several periods of incarceration. The most recent period of incarceration lasted March 27-May
15, 2018. Throughout this time and to the present, I have been homeless, unemployed and destitute.
12. Being homeless and having 6 felonies on my record as a result of a criminal conviction has been a
considerable barrier to obtaining employment. Despite my best efforts, I have not been able to secure any
employment. My current income is $0.
13. If a parent is incarcerated, the parent is not considered voluntarily unemployed, underemployed, or
employed on a less than full-time basis (Minn. Stat. § 518A.32) for purposes of imputing income. In
imputing income for child support, the Court failed to consider incarceration as a factor in my ability to
gain employment or earn an income. Instead of utilizing evidence that my income is currently zero, the
Court used pay stubs that are more than 3 years old to invent an income that currently is unattainable;
especially to someone with 6 felonies on their record. I have made attempts to find employment to no
avail.
14. If the Court were to impute income, effective March 1, 2016, Minnesota law states that imputed
income will be based on the income a parent could earn working 30 hours per week at 100 percent of the
current federal or state minimum wage, whichever is higher. I have not been assessed at by these
standards, and thus the child support calculation is incorrect.

15. Further evidence to support that I am impoverished- On December 1, 2017, Minnesota Appeal Court
Judge, Jill Flaskamps Halbrooks, ruled on a motion filed by Respondent, David Rucki, requesting that I
pay his court costs. Judge Halbrooks ruled that I should not be ordered to pay court costs and
disbursements because that would cause financial hardship, “in light of the district court’s determination
that I am entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.”
16. Since I was not given notice of the child support hearing, I was not allowed to present evidence or
raise arguments regarding my financial situation. The court also lacked current pay stubs to justify
issuing an amount of $975 per month in child support. There are no pay stubs because I am unemployed
and have been unable to regain employment with my FORMER employer.
17. Findings of Fact #19 incorrectly states that “Mother was again incarcerated beginning April 27,
2018.” Incarceration actually began March 27, 2018 and ended May 15, 2018.
18. According to Findings of Fact #14 “...the prior order should be interpreted to mean that child support
would be suspended if the Mother was incarcerated for a long period of time and that support should only
be suspended only for the three weeks while Mother was incarcerated during the Fall of 2016.” My recent
incarceration lasted 7 weeks – which should qualify for suspension of child support during this period,
just as child support was suspended for 3 weeks of previous incarceration.
19. The current court order is also erroneous because it relies on the previous order – which is over 2
years old. Current information needed to assess child support has not been gathered. Even the affidavit of
the Child Support Officer is lacking crucial facts and information. Under these circumstances, a proper
child support amount cannot be assessed. The county child support officer provided proof to the court
that i have no income and is on public assistance.
20. I am asking for forgiveness of arrears of past due child support due to my difficult circumstances
(homeless, incarceration, unemployed and unable to regain employment due to felony record). I lack the
financial resources to assure my own survival.
21. Forgiveness of child support arrears, or other payment arrangements, are allowed under Minn. Stat.
518A.62,” In order to reduce and otherwise manage support debts and arrearages, the parties, including
the public authority where arrearages have been assigned to the public authority, may compromise unpaid
support debts or arrearages owed by one party to another, whether or not docketed as a judgment. A party
may agree or disagree to compromise only those debts or arrearages owed to that party. “
22. Every time I have received money and attempted to pay past present and future arrears and support
the court as awarded in full the amount solely to Dave Rucki for "so called" debts with not one dime
going to child support. This is in violation of Mn statues Appendix 1 IV letter D. When I received a civil
award of 560,000.00 from my irrevocable trust I tried to pay support and arrears with it but the courts in
turn gave the ENTIRE amount to Dave Rucki and his parents for their debts. This left me with none of
my own money and unable to pay support arears or any money to live on.
23. While I realized that there is a cost of living increase every 2 years, i find it highly suspect that the
cost of living has been so significant that it makes any decrease null and void.
24. I was impoverished by the courts and not of my own volition. This has impacted past, present, and
future earnings.
25.All of the child support orders in this matter are based on fraud. The court has never considered my
actual income, and simply took my checks, which reflected my actual income and doubled them for their
child support purposes. They never considered that my W-2's for the years 2011-2015 were never greater
than $25,000 per year. I averaged around $20,000 to $25,000 per year. Because of this fact, the orders
are all null and void and should be voided. Child support should be recalculated based on my actual
income from those years, and my arrears should be adjusted accordingly,

26. I need the court to Order the reinstatement of my Driver’s license and passport in order for me to be
able to get any type of employment. Other than being a wife and mother, the only job i have had has
been in the airlines. I am unable to return to employment as a flight attendant, because of the felony
charges, but could work in other capacities in the travel industry, but not without my passport and
license. I also am unable to get to any type of job without a license to be able to drive to the location of
employment.

I declare that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct.
____________________________________________

Date: ________________________________