Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mother and Father divorced in Oregon in 2008, and the Oregon court granted Mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child. Although Father was granted supervised visitation at least once a month, Father visited the child on two occasions only. Father also failed in general to pay child support. Mother later moved to South Dakota and eventually married Stepfather. Mother and Stepfather subsequently initiated proceedings for adoption of the child. The trial court waived Father's consent to the adoption, terminated his parental rights, and entered the order for adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in waiving Father's consent to the adoption and in determining that it was in the best interest of the child to grant the stepparent adoption.View "In re Adoption of Z.N.F." on Justia Law

Jesse and Elizabeth, who were married with two children, were divorced in 2009. The divorce decree awarded primary physical custody of the children to Elizabeth and granted visitation to Jesse. After Elizabeth remarried and her husband accepted a job in California, Elizabeth filed a motion to relocate. The circuit court determined that it was in the best interests of the children to move to California and awarded Elizabeth $3,500 in attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) admitting and relying on certain evidence in making its determination; (2) determining that relocation was in the best interests of the children; and (3) awarding Elizabeth $3,500 in attorney fees.View "Brosnan v. Brosnan" on Justia Law

Amanda Pfuhl obtained a temporary protection order against her husband Jason. One month later, the circuit court continued the protection order for another month and appointed counsel, Tressa Kool, for the couple’s minor children. After the matter was heard again, the protection order was dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence. Kool subsequently sought costs related to her appointment. The circuit court ordered that Minnehaha County (“Minnehaha”) pay Kool $1094. Minnehaha appealed. On appeal, the circuit court argued that S.D. Codified Laws 26-8A-18 required the appointment counsel for the minor children and required ordering Minnehaha to pay appointed counsel’s costs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court lacked statutory authority in this case to order Minnehaha to pay appointed counsel’s costs because section 26-8A-18 applies to the particular subject of a child’s status or condition, and that was not the particular subject of the proceeding the circuit court presided over. View "Pfuhl v. Pfuhl" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married in 1997 and had five children together. Mother later filed for a divorce, and a decree of divorce was filed in 2010. The parties stipulated to joint legal custody with Mother having primary physical custody of the children. Following a domestic violence incident between Mother and Mother's new husband, Father sought permanent change of custody for the five children. The trial court granted temporary custody of the children to Father, after which Mother divorced her new husband. A permanent custody trial was later held, after which the trial court awarded joint legal custody and primary physical custody to Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in the best interests of the children that Father be awarded primary physical custody.View "Severson v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated Father and Mother’s parental rights to their biological children, M.S., age two, and K.S., age one. Father’s and Mother’s history up until this time included rampant drug use and terms of incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by finding Mother’s efforts futile in the face of the children’s need for permanency; and (2) good cause existed for terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father, as neither parent met their burden to prove the factual basis of the court’s application of S.D. Codified Laws 26-8A-21.1 or 26-8A.26.1 was in error. View "In re M.S." on Justia Law

Mother and Father had Child out of wedlock. Following their separation, Mother retained primary physical custody of Child. Father later filed a motion for change of custody. The trial court determined that it was in Child's best interests that Father have primary physical custody of Child. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based on its "balanced and thorough analysis" of the applicable factors provided in Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in the best interests of Child for Father to have primary physical custody; and (2) the parties' individual motions for appellate attorney fees were denied. View "Roth v. Haag" on Justia Law

The mother of three girls (Mother) signed a petition to voluntarily terminate her parental rights, attesting in an affidavit that she believed it to be in the best interests of her children for her children to remain with their father and to be adopted by his wife. After a termination hearing, the circuit court found Mother had voluntarily consented to the termination of her parental rights and ordered permanent termination. The court then entered judgment declaring the children to be the adopted children of their stepmother. Mother later moved to vacate the judgment terminating her parental rights, alleging fraud upon the court because she was "secretly paid" monetary consideration and given "secret promises" of continued visitation with her children. The court denied Mother's motion to vacate, ruling that Mother failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in balancing undisclosed side agreements and unsettled arrangements for continued parent contact with the children's need for stability and finality. View "In re Termination of Parental Rights of Ibanez" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 1997. As part of their divorce, Mother and Father entered into an agreement regarding payment of their children's post-high school educational expenses. The parties' youngest child, Jason, took five years to complete his undergraduate degree and was accepted into several master's degree programs. At the end of Jason's senior year of college, Father began to dispute his obligation to continue paying his share of Jason's educational expenses. The circuit court found that the parties' agreement was unambiguous and ordered Husband to pay his share of the expenses associated with Jason's fifth year of undergraduate studies and Jason's first year of graduate school. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the agreement was intended to include graduate school and was not limited to an undergraduate education; and (2) Father was obligated to pay his pro-rata share of Jason's fifth year of college. View "Roseth v. Roseth" on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who were unmarried, had a child in 2002. In 2008, Father was awarded primary physical custody of the child. In 2012, Father petitioned to increase Mother's child support obligation because he lost his job and was unemployed. After a hearing, the referee recommended that Mother's obligation be reduced because Father had received part of an inheritance and expected to receive the balance of that inheritance in the near future. The circuit court adopted the referee's recommendation and reduced Mother's child support obligation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Father's inheritance could not be considered when calculating Mother's child support obligation without a finding that the child's needs were not being met through Father's and Mother's income. Remanded. View "Crawford v. Schulte" on Justia Law

Wife and Husband were married in 1997. Wife, who was diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, was declared disabled in 2002. In 2011, Husband initiated divorce proceedings. Husband's attorney (Attorney) prepared the marital termination agreement and affidavits. After a meeting with Attorney, Wife signed the agreement, which gave Husband the marital home, two vehicles, a utility trailer, Husband's retirement accounts, stocks, bonds, checking and saving accounts, and life insurance. Wife received approximately eight percent of the property, and she waived alimony. The judgment and decree of divorce were filed in September 2011. Wife subsequently filed a motion to set aside the judgment, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits, holding that Wife demonstrated exceptional circumstances constituting excusable neglect and a probable meritorious defense. View "Geier v. Geier" on Justia Law