Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court granting a divorce to Husband and Wife on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, holding that the circuit court erred in part.On appeal, Husband raised challenges regarding issues involving child custody and support, the valuation and division of marital assets, and attorney fees. Wife appealed the circuit court's rulings regarding the grounds for divorce, property division and valuation, and attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court's findings were insufficient to support its conclusion that certain buy-out funds should be excluded from the marital estate and in setting the property aside as non-marital; and (2) the trial court erred by sua sponte ordering the production of the parties' tax returns post-divorce without seeking in put from the parties on the relevant considerations for a protective order. View "Dunham v. Sabers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court in this action brought by Plaintiff to determine custody, child support, and shared parenting of the parties' child and on Defendant's counterclaim for breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment, holding that the circuit court erred in part.In his counterclaim, Defendant argued that the parties had impliedly agreed that they would jointly own the marital home and that he would receive equity in the home acquired through his financial contributions toward the home mortgage. In response, Plaintiff claimed that she owned the home and that Defendant simply paid her rent while living there. The circuit court denied Defendant's claims, concluded that the parties' relationship was that of a landlord and tenant and awarded back rent, and determined shared child support and parenting issues. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred when it awarded Plaintiff back rent; (2) erred in determining the amount of back child support due; and (3) did not otherwise err or abuse its discretion. View "Murphey v. Pearson" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part orders entered by two different circuit court judges related to James Farmer's distributional interest in Lakota Lake Camp, LLC and orders related to the release of funds to James's wife, Lori Lieberman, that were previously held by the clerk of court following the execution sale of property owned by Lakota Lake, holding that the court erred in part.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the collection court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine Lori's application for a charging order; (2) the divorce court erred in ordering the release of excess sale proceeds to Lori; and (3) the collection court's order denying Lakota Lake's motion to release to the company the excess sale proceeds from the sale of Granite Perch, the last remaining property owned by Lakota Lake, to Lori must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings on the issue. View "Farmer v. Farmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting Mother's request for primary physical custody of the parties' daughter, V.F., and denying Father's request fo primary physical custody, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.Under a parenting order entered as part of their Arizona divorce the parties shared physical custody of V.F. Father later moved to South Dakota, registered the Arizona divorce and child custody order, and moved to modify the original shared parenting arrangement. Mother, who lived in California, opposed the motion and sought primary physical custody of V.F. The circuit court granted primary physical custody of the child to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's decision to grant primary physical custody of V.F. to Mother was not an abuse of discretion. View "Flint v. Flint" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the final order of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to their minor child, holding that there was no error.The court issued a final dispositional order terminating Mother's parental rights over her child and granted the Department of Social Services (DSS) full adoptive custody of the child, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that DSS made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in finding that DSS made active efforts to reunify L.N. with Mother; (2) did not clearly err in finding that termination of Mother's parental rights was the least restrictive alternative and in L.N.'s best interests; and (3) did not violate Mother's due process rights in denying her request to continue the final dispositional hearing. View "In re Interest of L.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating the parental rights of Father, holding that any error committed by the circuit court did not prejudice Father.After a hearing, the circuit court issued a decision terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) erred when it prematurely signed the State's proposed findings, but Father failed to establish prejudice caused by the error; (2) did not err when it determined that the Department of Social Services made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family; (3) did not clearly err in finding that Father's continued custody of the children would result in serious physical or emotional harm; and (4) did not err when it found that termination of Father's parental rights was the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the best interests of the children. View "In re A.A." on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's valuation of the marital estate, inclusion of certain property in the marital estate, and determination that Kibbe Conti owed Russell Conti an $11,436 cash equalization payment, holding that the circuit court erred.This appeal concerned only the valuation and division of certain property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court's valuation of the marital residence was clearly erroneous; (2) on remand, the circuit court is further directed to apply the legal factors outlined in this opinion and enter findings specifically addressing why certain property should be considered marital or non marital; and (3) the circuit court's determination that Kibbe owed Russell an $11,436 cash equalization payment was based on clear error. View "Conti v. Conti" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court issuing a permanent protection order against Matthew Batchelder, holding that the circuit court's order did not rest upon sufficient factual and legal support.While expressing its reluctance against the appropriateness of issuing a permanent protection order against Matthew, the court indicated that the protection order was necessary to ease the contentious relationship between Matthew and his former wife, Ame Batchelder. The court, however, did not issue any oral or written findings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lack of findings and legal justification rendered the protection order infirm. View "Batchelder v. Batchelder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the final dispositional order of the circuit court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father, the biological parents of C.R.W., holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.C.R.W. was the subject of an abuse and neglect proceeding before the circuit court. C.R.W. was considered an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 1903(4), and the Oglala Sioux Tribe intervened in the proceeding. The Tribe moved to disqualify C.R.W.'s attorney on the grounds that the attorney had a conflict of interest with C.R.W. The circuit court denied the motion. During the proceedings, Mother and the Tribe moved to transfer the case to tribal court, but the motion was denied. After the parents' parental rights were terminated, Mother and the Tribe appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err when it denied the Tribe's motions to disqualify C.R.W.'s attorney; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motions to transfer jurisdiction. View "In re C.R.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's dispositional order terminating Mother's rights to her daughter, holding that the evidence did not establish that active efforts were made to reunify Mother and the child.After a hearing, the court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the State "made reasonable and active efforts to provide remedial services designed to prevent the breakup of the family and those rehabilitative programs [had] been unsuccessful." On appeal, Mother challenged the court's conclusion that active efforts were provided to prevent the breakup of the family and that the efforts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in terminating Mother's parental rights on the basis that the South Dakota Department of Social Services had been making active efforts since the inception of the case and that such efforts were unsuccessful. View "In re C.H." on Justia Law