Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shirley Murphy (Mrs. Murphy), who was ninety years old at the time of this action, had four adult daughters, Dee, Shirley, Claudia, and Mary (collectively, Daughters). In May 2012, Claudia obtained an appointment as Mrs. Murphy's temporary guardian and conservator. Both Claudia and Shirley petitioned to serve as permanent guardian and conservator. After a trial, the circuit court appointed Claudia permanent guardian and conservator. On September 5, 2012, notice of entry of the order appointing Claudia was served on Daughters. On October 10, 2012, Shirley served notice of her appeal by mail on Mrs. Murphy and Daughters. Claudia moved to dismiss Shirley's appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Shirley failed to timely serve her notice of appeal on all the parties to the action, and her appeal must be dismissed. View "In re Guardianship of Murphy" on Justia Law

When Peggy Nelson was ninety-one years old, she executed a durable power of attorney giving John Rice numerous powers over her personal and financial affairs. When Peggy was ninety-four years old, her niece and nephew petitioned the circuit court to appoint a guardian and conservator for Peggy and her estate, alleging that Rice was plundering Peggy's estate by misuse of the power of attorney. The circuit court subsequently appointed a temporary emergency guardian and conservator for Peggy to protect her personal and financial interests. After the circuit court extended the appointment of the temporary emergency guardian and conservator, Rice requested the court to set aside its previous orders as void due to the court's failure to follow regular procedures in the proceeding. The court denied Rice's petition. Rice appealed, contending that the court's failure to follow the mandates of the South Dakota Guardianship and Conservatorship Act extinguished the court's jurisdiction to appoint the guardian and conservator. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded the matter for the court to fulfill the requirements of the Act, including its continued administration of the guardianship and conservatorship. View "In re Guardianship of Nelson" on Justia Law

In 2010, Husband sought a divorce from Wife on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The trial court granted the divorce. In its judgment and decree of divorce, the trial court denied Wife's request to relocate to New York City with the couple's two minor children, granted Husband and Wife joint legal and physical custody of the children, implemented a custody schedule, ordered Husband to pay Wife child support, resolved disputed property issues, and denied Wife's request for attorney fees. Wife appealed several the trial court's determinations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's decisions as to custody, child support, property division, and attorney fees were not an abuse of discretion. View "Schieffer v. Schieffer" on Justia Law

Daughter was born with cerebral palsy and developmental disabilities. Daughter's Father and Mother later divorced. After Daughter turned eighteen, a California court appointed Mother as Daughter's guardian and conservator. Mother subsequently moved to South Dakota with her new husband and Daughter. Thereafter, Father sought to end Mother's role as guardian and conservator. After a hearing, a South Dakota circuit court terminated Mother's appointment as guardian and conservator for Daughter, finding that Mother failed adequately to address Daughter's obesity and transition to more independent living. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) preventing Mother from questioning attorneys appointed to represent Daughter about certain statements attorneys made in an investigative report, as the report was not entered into evidence at the hearing; and (2) removing Mother as Daughter's guardian and conservator, as Mother did not make significant progress toward the goal of moving Daughter into an independent residential living situation and failed promptly and aggressively to manage the issue of Daughter's weight. View "In re Guardianship of Stevenson" on Justia Law

Father was the biological father of three sons and one daughter and the stepfather of two stepdaughters. Upon allegations that Father raped one of his stepdaughters, the children were taken into the custody of the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS subsequently filed a petition alleging that the children were abused or neglected. Ultimately, the circuit court terminated Father's parental rights to all of his biological children. Father appealed, arguing that DSS did not make active efforts to reunite the Indian family and that termination of his parental rights was not the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based upon the circumstances, DSS actively attempted to reunify the family, but those efforts were unsuccessful; and (2) the circuit court did not err in finding that the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the best interests of the children was termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re Interest of S.H.E." on Justia Law

In this custody dispute between the non-married parents of two minor children, the maternal grandparents were permitted to join/intervene. After a trial, the circuit court awarded legal and physical custody to the grandparents and visitation to the father. The father appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grandparents' joinder/intervention, as the grandparents made a sufficient showing for joinder/intervention; (2) reversed the custody award, holding that the circuit court erred in awarding the grandparents custody because the grandparents did not meet their evidentiary burden, and the Court could not consider the court's findings regarding the best interests of the children; and (3) remanded for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reconsideration of the issue of attorney's fees. View "Veldheer v. Peterson" on Justia Law

After the parties' divorce, Appellee filed a petition for a domestic abuse protection order from Appellant. The trial court granted the protection order for one year and excluded Appellant from Appellee's residence and from coming within 300 feet of her and her daughter. The order further excluded Appellant from the high school and Boys and Girls Club. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) at the hearing on this matter, the trial court improperly restricted Appellant's cross-examination of Appellee on any issues of domestic violence beyond Appellant's e-mails; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law with sufficient specificity to permit the Court to meaningfully review whether the protection order was appropriately granted. View "Castano v. Ishol" on Justia Law

Daniel Huffaker and Jeffrey Huffaker were granted a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences. The trial court awarded Danielle primary physical custody of the parties' three minor children and ordered Jeffrey to pay Danielle $1,310 per month as child support. The trial court also distributed the marital property and ordered the parties to pay their own attorney fees. Danielle appealed, arguing, in part, that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to value the marital property before distributing it and in failing to distribute the marital property equitably. The Supreme Court reversed on property valuation and distribution issues, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to assign values to the parties' property before distributing it; and (2) because the trial court failed to value the property and failed to articulate its rationale for the disproportionate property division, the Court was incapable of reviewing whether the trial court's division of property was equitable. Remanded. View "Huffaker v. Huffaker" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had a child out of wedlock. The parents had agreed that Mother would retain physical custody of the child and Father would exercise visitation for one week every other month. This arrangement continued until Father petitioned for a change of custody. The circuit court awarded joint legal custody to both parents and primary physical custody to Father. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding (1) Mother's mental health condition, when untreated, made her unable to care for the child; (2) Mother's relationships negatively impacted the child; (3) Father had developed a bond with the child and could meet the child's needs; and (4) Father's wife's relationship with the child was not inappropriate, harmful, or otherwise negative. Lastly, the court did not impose a higher burden on Mother to prove a substantial change in circumstances before she could receive custody. View "Benson v. Loffelmacher" on Justia Law

Bradley DeBoer sued Tara DeBoer for divorce. During the parties' marriage, the Texas Department of State Health Services issued an amended birth certificate naming Bradley as the father of Taiton, the child Tara had from a prior relationship. Tara counterclaimed for custody and support of Taiton. The circuit court granted Tara custody of Taiton but denied her request for child support. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court erred in concluding Bradley was not Taiton's presumed father under Texas law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 1260.207(a)(4), a rebuttable presumption of paternity arose because Bradley voluntarily asserted he was Taiton's biological father and the assertion was in a record filed with the bureau of vital statistics; (2) under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 160.607(b) the presumption of paternity was not rebutted; and (3) although Bradley was not Taiton's biological father, Bradley was Taiton's parent for purposes of child support. Remanded. View "DeBoer v. DeBoer" on Justia Law