Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Charlene Monfore petitioned for guardianship and conservatorship over her mother, Gerda Flyte, who suffers from dementia. Gerda’s son, Roger Flyte, objected and requested to be appointed instead. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found it was not in Gerda’s best interests to appoint either Charlene or Roger and instead appointed Black Hills Advocate, LLC (BHA), a for-profit corporation. Charlene appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by not appointing her and lacked statutory authority to appoint a for-profit organization.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Fall River County, South Dakota, initially appointed Charlene as temporary guardian and conservator. Roger objected, raising concerns about Gerda’s care under Charlene, including medical neglect and financial mismanagement. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the court found both Charlene and Roger unsuitable due to various concerns, including Charlene’s failure to provide necessary medical care and financial mismanagement, and Roger’s financial irresponsibility and anger issues. The court appointed BHA as guardian and conservator.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint Charlene, given the evidence of her inadequate care and financial mismanagement. However, the Supreme Court found that SDCL 29A-5-110 does not authorize the appointment of for-profit entities as guardians or conservators, except for qualified banks or trust companies as conservators. Therefore, the appointment of BHA was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The court also awarded Roger one-half of his requested appellate attorney fees. View "Guardianship And Conservatorship Of Flyte" on Justia Law

Nicholas and Heather Wasilk, former spouses, share joint legal custody of their three minor children. Heather sought to take the children on vacation to Mexico and requested Nicholas’s consent for their passport applications. Nicholas refused, leading Heather to file a motion for an order directing Nicholas to participate in the passport application process. The circuit court granted Heather’s motion. Nicholas appealed, arguing that the circuit court lacked authority to resolve Heather’s motion, failed to properly weigh the best interests of the children, and infringed on his fundamental parental rights.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, initially adopted a custody arrangement where Heather had primary physical custody. In 2023, Nicholas sought to modify the custody agreement to include travel restrictions, proposing that the children not leave the continental United States without both parents' consent. The court adopted a modified agreement requiring 45 days' notice for international travel and a court hearing if either parent objected. Heather planned a trip to Mexico and requested Nicholas’s consent for passports, which he refused, citing safety concerns and the child’s medical conditions. The circuit court, after a hearing, ordered Nicholas to cooperate with the passport application process.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the circuit court had the authority to order Nicholas to participate in the passport application process under 22 C.F.R. § 51.28(c)(2). The court found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the trip was in the best interests of the children, considering the safety measures Heather planned and the benefits of the trip. The court also held that Nicholas’s fundamental parental rights were not infringed, as the best interests of the children standard applied in disputes between parents. View "Wasilk v. Wasilk" on Justia Law

The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed an abuse and neglect petition concerning two minor children, N.K., Jr. and S.K., who are Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The children were taken into emergency temporary custody after their father, N.K., Sr., was arrested for driving under the influence with the children in the car. The children were found to be homeless and in poor condition. The State filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect, and the father admitted to the allegations. Despite DSS providing various services, including substance abuse treatment and visitation arrangements, the father continued to struggle with substance abuse and was repeatedly incarcerated. The mother was largely absent and uncooperative.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Gregory County, South Dakota, handled the initial proceedings. The father was served with the petition at an advisory hearing, but no summons was issued or served. The case was transferred between counties due to the father's relocation. The father admitted to the allegations, and DSS provided ongoing services. Despite some progress, the father relapsed and was arrested again, leading to a failed trial reunification. The State filed a petition for termination of parental rights, and the court held a final dispositional hearing.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the failure to issue or serve a summons did not deprive the court of jurisdiction because the father had actual notice of the proceedings. The court also found that termination of parental rights was the least restrictive alternative, given the father's ongoing substance abuse issues and inability to provide a stable environment. Additionally, the court determined that DSS had made active efforts to reunite the family, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The court affirmed the termination of both parents' parental rights. View "Interest Of N.K." on Justia Law

Fawna and Terry Goff were married in 2015 and had one child, M.G. In late 2021, Terry left the marital home in South Dakota for work in Texas and did not return, eventually starting a new relationship. Fawna allowed M.G. to visit Terry in Texas, but Terry refused to return the child. Fawna filed for divorce, and the circuit court granted her a divorce on grounds of adultery, awarded her primary custody of M.G., set child support, divided property, and awarded partial attorney fees to Fawna. Terry appealed.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Meade County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. Terry did not respond to the divorce complaint in a timely manner, leading Fawna to seek a default judgment. At the default hearing, Terry requested to proceed with the divorce trial, which the court allowed. The court granted Fawna a divorce, primary custody of M.G., and ordered Terry to pay child support and arrearages. Terry was also ordered to pay half of the mortgage on the marital home and awarded his camper. Terry filed for divorce in Texas, but the South Dakota court retained jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the divorce and custody decisions but found that the circuit court abused its discretion in calculating child support arrearages without considering the time M.G. spent with Terry. The court also found that the circuit court failed to make necessary findings regarding the best interests of M.G. in limiting Terry’s visitation to South Dakota and in awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new calculation of arrearages and further findings on visitation and attorney fees. View "Goff v. Goff" on Justia Law

Fawna and Terry Goff were married in 2015 and had one child, M.G. In late 2021, Terry left for work in Texas and did not return, pursuing a new relationship. Fawna allowed M.G. to visit Terry in Texas, but he refused to return the child. Fawna filed for divorce, and the circuit court granted her a divorce on grounds of adultery, awarded her primary custody of M.G., set child support, divided property, and awarded partial attorney fees to Fawna. Terry appealed.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Meade County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. Terry did not respond to the divorce complaint in time, leading Fawna to seek a default judgment. At the hearing, Terry requested to proceed with the divorce trial, which the court allowed. The court granted Fawna a divorce, primary custody of M.G., and ordered Terry to pay child support and arrearages. Terry was also ordered to pay half the mortgage on the marital home and awarded his camper. Terry filed for divorce in Texas, but the South Dakota court retained jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that Terry waived his claim against the trial on the merits by not objecting at the hearing. However, the court found that the circuit court abused its discretion in calculating arrearages without considering the months Terry cared for M.G. and other support provided. The court also found insufficient findings regarding the best interests of M.G. for visitation limitations and the award of attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculating arrearages and further findings on visitation and attorney fees. View "Goff v. Goff" on Justia Law

Regina Goeden and Wayne Goeden were involved in a divorce proceeding where Wayne contested the circuit court's decisions on the validity of their premarital agreement, the valuation and division of marital property, the treatment of his veterans' disability benefits, and the grounds for divorce. Regina and Wayne had been married since 2017, and both had adult children from previous marriages. They lived together in a home owned by Wayne, and prior to their marriage, Wayne physically assaulted Regina, leading to a temporary breakup and legal charges against Wayne.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County, South Dakota, found the premarital agreement void and unenforceable, determining that Regina did not execute it voluntarily and that it was unconscionable. The court also found that Wayne did not provide a fair and reasonable disclosure of his property and financial obligations. The court divided the marital property equally, giving Wayne credit for certain premarital assets but rejecting his claims for additional credits related to the marital home and other expenses. The court also found that Wayne violated a temporary restraining order by using marital funds for personal expenses.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's decisions. The court held that the premarital agreement was unconscionable and that Wayne did not provide adequate disclosure of his assets. The court also upheld the equal division of the marital estate, finding no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's valuation and division of property. Additionally, the court agreed with the circuit court's treatment of Wayne's veterans' disability benefits, determining that they lost their exclusionary status when commingled with marital funds. Finally, the court affirmed the grant of divorce to Regina on the grounds of extreme cruelty, based on credible evidence of Wayne's emotional abuse. View "Goeden v. Goeden" on Justia Law

Leslie Torgerson, a non-Indian, and Terri Torgerson, an enrolled member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe (SWO), were married in South Dakota. Terri filed for divorce in the SWO tribal court, while Leslie filed for divorce in Roberts County. Leslie moved to dismiss the tribal court proceedings, arguing lack of jurisdiction and improper service, but the tribal court denied his motion. Subsequently, Terri moved to dismiss Leslie’s state court proceedings, and the circuit court granted her motion, recognizing the tribal court’s order under the principle of full faith and credit. Leslie appealed this decision.The circuit court concluded that it shared concurrent subject matter jurisdiction with the tribal court over the divorce but deferred to the tribal court’s order, which it believed had obtained valid personal jurisdiction first. The court also found that the tribal court’s order was entitled to full faith and credit, despite Leslie’s arguments to the contrary.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the circuit court erred in extending full faith and credit to the tribal court’s order. Instead, the court should have applied the principles of comity under SDCL 1-1-25, which requires clear and convincing evidence that the tribal court had proper jurisdiction and that the order was obtained through a fair process. The Supreme Court found that the tribal court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Leslie, a non-Indian, and that the tribal court’s order did not meet the requirements for comity. Consequently, the tribal court’s order was not enforceable, and the circuit court’s dismissal of Leslie’s divorce action was reversed. View "Torgerson v. Torgerson" on Justia Law

Steven and Jennifer Condron were granted a divorce in September 2019. The divorce decree included a division of assets and ordered Steven to pay Jennifer a combination of permanent and rehabilitative alimony. Steven was also required to pay $3,218 per month in child support. Three years later, Steven petitioned to modify the child support, arguing that the alimony payments should be considered in the child support calculation. The child support referee declined to include the alimony payments in Jennifer’s income and refused to exclude them from Steven’s income, treating the payments as part of the property division rather than alimony. The circuit court adopted the referee’s findings and conclusions.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. The court found that Steven’s gross annual income exceeded $1,000,000, while Jennifer had no income. The court ordered Steven to pay Jennifer $15,000 per month in alimony for four years, followed by $11,000 per month in permanent alimony. Steven later filed a petition to modify child support due to a significant reduction in his income after being terminated from his job. The child support referee found Steven’s new gross monthly income to be approximately $45,639.42 and Jennifer’s income to be $1,638. Despite these findings, the referee treated the alimony payments as part of the property division and did not adjust the parties’ incomes for child support purposes. The circuit court upheld this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the monthly payments were indeed alimony and not part of the property division. The court noted that the payments were consistently referred to as alimony and were terminable upon significant life events, such as death or remarriage, which is characteristic of alimony. The court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case for recalculating child support, including the alimony payments in Jennifer’s income and excluding them from Steven’s income. View "Condron v. Condron" on Justia Law

Charles Joseph Burkard sued Tami Jo Burkard for divorce in 2012, and they agreed to share joint legal and physical custody of their two children, with Charles paying $1,000 per month in child support. In 2022, their daughter began living full-time with Tami, prompting Tami to seek a modification of child support. The child support referee calculated Charles's new obligation using a hybrid formula, resulting in a monthly payment of $1,465.58. Tami objected, arguing for a different calculation method.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, held a hearing and admitted new testimony from a child support referee, Tom Keller, over Tami's objections. The court ultimately adopted the referee's hybrid formula for calculating child support, despite Tami's argument that it did not align with statutory guidelines and inflated Charles's obligation.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It found that the circuit court erred in admitting Keller's testimony, as it violated SDCL 25-7A-22, which confines evidence to the record established before the referee. However, this error was deemed non-prejudicial because the circuit court's decision was based on the referee's initial report and recommendation.The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the referee's child support calculation, as it was within a reasonable range of potential awards. However, due to discrepancies in the parties' stated income and health insurance amounts, the case was remanded for further calculations. The main holding affirmed the child support amount but required recalculations to address income discrepancies. View "Burkard v. Burkard" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Julie and Gary Liebel, who married in 2010 and divorced in 2022. Prior to their marriage, they had signed a premarital agreement stating that each party's assets would remain separate and under their sole control, even after the marriage. The agreement also stated that neither party would acquire any interest in the other's property due to the marriage. The couple divorced on the grounds of adultery, and the circuit court applied the premarital agreement in dividing their assets. Julie appealed, arguing that the court erred in applying the agreement to the property division in the divorce and abused its discretion in classifying and distributing the parties’ property.The circuit court had found the premarital agreement to be valid and enforceable in the context of divorce. It also found that the agreement unambiguously governed the division of property in the event of divorce. The court treated the marital home, which was held jointly, as marital property, but most of the remaining property was treated as nonmarital. Gary received the bulk of the nonmarital property valued at $713,705. Upon division of the net marital assets, Julie was awarded marital property valued at $35,482, while Gary received marital property valued at $134,535. The court ordered Gary to make a cash equalization payment to Julie in the amount of $49,526, less $2,062.80 in attorney fees awarded to Gary for defending a protection order that the court determined Julie filed maliciously.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the premarital agreement unambiguously provided that neither spouse may claim an interest in the separate property of the other, whether it was acquired before or during the marriage. This could only be understood to mean that the other spouse would not obtain any interest in separately owned property under any circumstances, including divorce, unless mutually agreed to by creating a joint tenancy in any property. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's division of property. View "Liebel v. Liebel" on Justia Law