I am respectfully requesting that Minn. Stat. 518A.39, Subd.2 Para (a) be amended to no longer state that incarceration is considered involuntary unemployment. I do so under the stance that Minnesota state law states that a child has the right to be financially supported by both parents.

I received a letter in the mail stating that, and I quote, "there has been a substantial change in circumstances making the terms of the previous order unreasonable and unfair". The new order is stating that because my child's father is incarcerated and therefore not working, he will not have to pay arrears for his child support as his incarceration is a form of "involuntary unemployment". It was not involuntary. As a fully capable and functioning adult, he made the decision to continually engage in illegal actions (including four separate charges of felony domestic assault) that have resulted in his incarceration. The crimes, which led to the inability to work, is a voluntary act.

The new order states it is "unreasonable and unfair" to ask for arrears once he is released. I would like to elaborate on the subject of unreasonable and unfair.

It is unfair to take future resources away from a child that has the right to be supported by both of their parents. The child doesn't stop having basic needs because the non-custodial parent is incarcerated. Therefore the child support should not stop either.
It is unfair to put the financial burden on the taxpayers not only for the non-custodial parents incarceration but as well as the child support payments that the incarcerated parent should be paying the State.
It is unfair to place the financial burden solely on the responsible, custodial parent simply because the non-custodial parent is incarcerated.
It is unfair to shower an incarcerated parent with resources to modify their child support while incarcerated and then simply send the responsible, custodial parent a letter that states the decision and leave them to fend for themselves.

Why is "what's fair" for the incarcerated, non-custodial parent placed before that of the child?

Arrears should absolutely be put in place while a parent is incarcerated. Regardless of their employment status their responsibility and obligation to care for their child should not change. A non incarcerated parent does not get to pause their payments or arrears, doing so due to incarceration is essentially rewarding the incarcerated parent for their criminal behavior while simultaneously punishing the child as well as the responsible, custodial parent.
The incarcerated parent will not have an income while incarcerated, of course, but they will at the point of release or sometime after.

In closing, I am asking that arrears be reinstated for incarcerated parents and for incarceration to no longer be deemed as involuntary unemployment but rather the voluntary employment that it is. Being a parent and supporting a child is not something that should be "paused" for convenience, which is exactly what pausing arrears while incarcerated is, an undeserved convenience for the incarcerated party at the tax payers expense.