State v. Nelson

Because the majority misreads an unambiguous statute and thereby undermines an important child support enforcement law, I respectfully dissent.

I

This case requires us to interpret Minn. Stat. § 609.375 (2012), captioned “Nonsupport of spouse or child.”1 We review *451questions of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Hayes, 826 N.W.2d 799, 803 (Minn.2013). The object of statutory interpretation and construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2012); State v. Crawley, 819 N.W.2d 94, 102 (Minn.2012). When interpreting a statute, we construe…