Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

When Mother and Father divorced, they agreed pursuant to a parenting plan incorporated into the divorce decree to share custody of Child, with Mother having primary physical custody. Father later moved to obtain primary physical custody. The circuit court granted Father's motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court took a balanced and systematic approach in applying the relevant child custody factors; (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Father had the ability to provide Child with guidance and good modeling behavior; and (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in choosing one of two conflicting child custody evaluator opinions.

In an abuse and neglect proceeding, petitioner father's parental rights were terminated in the trial court. The court of appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal because the original notice of appeal did not contain petitioner's signature required by S.D. Codified Laws 15-26A-4. The petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court to reinstate his appeal but prior to mailing the petition the time for filing a notice of appeal had expired. The Supreme Court denied the petition for reinstatement. The Court concluded that (1) the signing requirement of the statute is jurisdictional and jurisdictional requirements cannot be waived; (2) filing a notice of appeal without petitioner's signature deprived the Court of jurisdiction to consider the appeal of a judgment terminating parental rights; and (3) because the time for filing an appeal expired before petitioner cured the defect, any notice of appeal filed after the prescribed period failed to confer jurisdiction upon the Court.