Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involved a grandchildren visitation disagreement between a father and maternal grandparents. After the children's mother died, the father arranged for the children's continued contact with the grandparents. However, the grandparents were unhappy with the father's restrictions on visitation, and they filed a petition for a broader visitation plan. At the close of the grandparents' case-in-chief, the circuit court granted the father's motion for a judgment as a matter of law and motion for attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion (1) in granting the father's motion for a judgment as a matter of law, as the grandparents did not present any evidence rebutting the father's presumptive parental right to control the custody and visitation of his children; and (2) awarding attorney's fees, as the court's findings and conclusions were based on sufficient evidence and were sufficient to support the award. View "Beach v. Coisman" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the circuit court terminated Mother's parental rights to Child. Mother was Native American and eligible to be enrolled in the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, but because she was not actually enrolled, an Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) specialist for the Tribe concluded that Child was not eligible for enrollment. Since Child was not enrolled or eligible for enrollment, the court found ICWA inapplicable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err (1) in finding ICWA inapplicable, as Mother failed to show that Child was an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA; and (2) in finding that termination of Mother's parental rights was the least restrictive alternative available. View "In re L.S." on Justia Law

After six years of marriage, Jamie and Clayton Farlee divorced. In dividing the marital property, the circuit court ordered Clay to pay Jamie $48,000 to equalize the property division without indicating the total value of the assets awarded to Clay and Jamie. Jamie appealed, contending that the court erred in failing to classify disputed assets as marital or nonmarital and in failing to value certain marital property. The Supreme Court determined that because of uncertainties regarding the marital classification of all disputed property, and because the Court was unable to determine the circuit court's valuation of all marital property, the Court was unable to review whether the circuit court arrived at an equitable division. Consequently, the Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the property division after the entry of findings of fact and conclusions on the existing record clearly resolving the valuation and marital property issues. View "Farlee v. Farlee" on Justia Law

After Father and Mother separated, Mother left the couple's three children with Father's mother (Grandmother). Grandmother later petitioned for guardianship of the children. The petition was granted in 2008. The Supreme Court reversed the order in 2010, and Mother received primary physical custody of the children. Father subsequently filed a petition for custody of the children, which the circuit court granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) considering evidence of Mother's conduct before the 2008 guardianship trial, as res judicata did not bar consideration of the information in the circuit court's determination of Mother's fitness; and (2) concluding that Father rebutted the presumption that he should not receive custody, where the court's findings and conclusions overwhelmingly indicated that it was in the children's best interests that primary physical custody be awarded to Father. View "Nemec v. Goeman" on Justia Law

Lorraine Flaws died testate but was predeceased by her named beneficiaries. Because Flaws' will did not designate contingent beneficiaries, the administration of her estate was governed by the laws of intestate succession. Prior to a hearing to determine heirs, a motion for partial summary judgment was filed claiming that Lorraine's niece, who was born to Lorraine's brother out of wedlock, did not have standing under the pertinent statutes to assert that she was an heir of the estate. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the niece did not comply with S.D. Codified Laws 29A-2-114, which sets forth the methods and time limits an individual born out of wedlock must comply with in order to establish parentage for purposes of intestate succession. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a question remained as to whether Yvette failed to comply with any of the methods and time limits in the statute for establishing paternity. Remanded. View "In re Estate of Flaws" on Justia Law

Maternal grandparents petitioned for permanent guardianship of a minor Indian child in the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe tribal court. After receiving the guardianship, they sought to have it recognized in a South Dakota circuit court, which had been exercising jurisdiction over the child and his deceased mother since 2007. The circuit court concluded that the tribal court did not have jurisdiction and, consequently, denied the grandparents' motion to recognize the tribal court order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the minor child did not reside on the Mille Lacs Reservation for purposes of exclusive jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act; and (2) because the tribal court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the grandparents' guardianship petition, the circuit court did not err in denying the grandparents' petition to recognize the tribal court order. View "Merrill v. Altman" on Justia Law

Upon issuing a divorce decree, the trial court awarded Wife $500 per month in alimony for eight years and attorney's fees. In granting the alimony, the court considered Husband's social security and military disability payments but did not order attachment of those benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) given that Husband's social security disability benefits were subject to garnishment for alimony under federal law, the circuit court did not err in merely considering the benefits in determining whether an alimony award was appropriate; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Wife demonstrated a need for and Husband's ability to pay alimony; and (3) considering Wife's resources and income and the complex legal issues in this case requiring briefing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Wife attorney's fees. View "Urbaniak v. Urbaniak" on Justia Law

After a one-month old was taken to the hospital with injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma, the State took custody of the child and started an abuse and neglect proceeding. Months later, the child was adjudicated abused or neglected. Following a period of State supervision, the child was returned to Mother, and the abuse and neglect action was dismissed as to both Mother and Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) declining to make separate findings regarding Mother's and Father's culpability; (2) finding the child abused or neglected under S.D. Codified Laws 26-8A-2(1) and (3); and (3) declining to alternatively find that the child was abused or neglected under S.D. Codified Laws 26-8A-2(5). View "In re Matter of M.V." on Justia Law

When Husband and Wife divorced, Wife retained custody of their two children, and Husband paid child support. Wife later sought modification of Husband's obligation. Husband requested a deviation from the child support guidelines because of his financial condition caused by the medical expenses of his wife, who suffered from serious medical problems. Based on Husband's financial condition, the referee allowed a downward deviation from the scheduled support obligation pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 25-7-6.10(2). The circuit court adopted the referee's recommendation, finding that without the requested deviation, Husband could not meet his financial obligations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the referee and circuit court did not abuse their discretion in reducing Husband's child support based on his financial condition because S.D. Codified Laws 25-7-6.10(2) allowed for the deviation in this case. View "Linge v. Meyerink " on Justia Law

Lacy March sought a protection order against Roger Thursby, which the circuit court granted. The testimony elicited at trial concerned stalking. Thursby appealed, alleging, among other things, that the findings of fact were insufficient to support the order as signed. The Supreme Court reversed due to insufficiency of the findings of fact, holding the circuit court failed to insure that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were clearly entered. Specifically, the Court found that although the circuit court indicated that it believed March's version of the events, the written finding did not correspond with the oral testimony of March, and the court did not indicate how the evidence met the statutory elements of stalking. View "March v. Thursby" on Justia Law