Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Allison Marie and James (Jim) Joseph Marko married on September 26, 1998. Three children were born of the marriage. Allison was granted a divorce from Jim on grounds of extreme mental cruelty. Jim's visitation with his children was conditioned on his having absolutely no contact with his mistress "Emmy" when the children were in his presence. Allison received sole custody of the children. In this divorce appeal, Jim asserted that the trial judge (1) should have disqualified himself because the judge presided over another case in which Emmy had been "enmeshed"; (2) abused his discretion in restricting visitation; and (3) erred in granting the Allison Marie a divorce on grounds of extreme mental cruelty. Finding no merit to any of Jim's issues on appeal and that the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Marko v. Marko" on Justia Law

M.A.S. (Father) appealed the termination of his parental rights to P.S.E. At the time P.S.E. was removed from Mother’s care, Father lived in California and did not know he had a child in South Dakota. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied to these proceedings because P.S.E. was an enrolled member of the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe. Father argued on appeal that the Department of Social Services (DSS) did not make active efforts to reunite the Indian family and that any efforts made were successful. Because the evidence presented shows that DSS provided active and reasonable, though abbreviated, efforts to place P.S.E. with Father, and those efforts were unsuccessful, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights. View "In the interest of P.S.E." on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who were never married, had one child, N.B. After Mother and Father ended their relationship, Mother retained custody of N.B. Mother subsequently entered into another romantic relationship, which produced N.B.'s half-sister, A.K. Later, Father filed an action requesting the trial court to grant him custody of N.B. The trial court granted Father's request, reasoning that Father would provide N.B. with heightened stability. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that compelling circumstances warranted the separation of siblings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly considered the relevant factors in making its custody determination, and its finding that compelling reasons existed to separate N.B. from her half-sibling was not clearly erroneous; and (2) therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary physical custody to Father. View "Beaulieu v. Birdsbill" on Justia Law

Jeannine and Donald Barton divorced, and the circuit court awarded Jeannine permanent alimony, a monetary judgment, and attorney fees. After Donald filed for bankruptcy, the court issued an order clarifying the nature of the monetary judgment. Jeannine and Donald later entered into a settlement agreement regarding the judgment. The agreement, which was not incorporated into the divorce decree, resolved a dispute regarding the judgment and released all present and future claims between the parties. Nine years later, Jeannine moved to modify alimony. The circuit court granted the motion after noting that Donald's financial situation had changed and (1) increased Jeannine's monthly alimony award, and (2) extended Donald's alimony obligation beyond Donald's death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's findings when it considered modification did not support a change in circumstances justifying a modification of alimony, as the original divorce decree was not predicated solely on Donald's ability to pay but also took into account Jeannine's need. View "Barton v. Barton" on Justia Law

Anthony Webb appealed an order reducing child support arrearages to a written judgment in favor of his ex-wife, Kathy Webb. The circuit court awarded Kathy a judgment of $71,805. Anthony appealed, arguing that he paid the child support as it came due and that the passage of time should prevent Kathy from recovering. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Anthony presented no testimony at trial, the uncontroverted evidence before the circuit court established the existence and amount of the unpaid child support obligation; and (2) the circuit court did not err by refusing to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel or laches to Kathy's claim, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying Anthony's motion for new trial. View "Webb v. Webb" on Justia Law

Kellie and Doug Rumpca married in August 1990. Around 2005, Glenn Brenner and Kellie became friends. On Labor Day weekend in 2009, Brenner and Kellie had sexual intercourse. In October 2009, Kellie commenced divorce proceedings. In April 2010, Doug brought suit against Brenner for alienation of affections, alleging that Brenner wrongfully, willfully, intentionally, and maliciously interfered with his marital relationship with Kellie, and as a result, he suffered a loss of affection and consortium from Kellie. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Brenner, declaring that there were no affections to alienate. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that conflicting evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kellie had affection for her husband that Brenner could have alienated. Remanded for trial.

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.

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.

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.

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.