Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Department of Social Services (DSS) removed Child from the custody of her biological mother two days after Child’s birth. Child was placed in the temporary custody of Foster Parents, who had previously adopted Child’s sister. The parental rights of both biological parents were subsequently terminated. Thereafter, DSS consented to the adoption of Child by Foster Parents instead of Child’s maternal Aunt. Aunt requested a hearing to review DSS’s decision, arguing that she was entitled to adoption placement preference over Foster Parents. The circuit court concluded that DSS did not abuse its discretion in consenting to the adoption by Foster Parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Aunt failed to establish that she was entitled to placement preference. View "In re Interest of E.M.H." on Justia Law

Attorney Irene Schrunk represented Mary Ellen Nylen in a divorce and was involved subsequent legal matters regarding Mary Ellen and her new husband, Mark Nylen. When Mark served Mary Ellen with a summons and complaint for divorce, Schrunk advised Mary Ellen that Schrunk could not represent her because Schrunk had represented Mark in the past. On July 31, 2014, Mary Ellen’s adult children, Molly and Brendon, commenced this action against Mary Ellen seeking a declaration that Mary Ellen had gifted them personal property. Molly and Brendon sought to depose Schrunk regarding communications she had with Mary Ellen between November 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. Mary Ellen moved to prohibit the discovery, citing the attorney-client privilege protected the communications. The circuit court determined that the initial communications were privileged but did not extend the privilege to communications and documents shared with Schrunk after January 1, 2014. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mary Ellen failed to meet her burden of proving entitlement to the attorney-client privilege after January 1, 2014, and Mary Ellen waived the privilege with respect to certain documents when she shared with Schrunk privileged communications between Mary Ellen and her current attorneys. View "Nylen v. Nylen" on Justia Law

In 2014, Mother and Father agreed to divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. After a two-day trial, the circuit court granted Mother primary physical custody of the parties’ two children. Father appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by basing its decision on findings that were unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that awarding primary physical custody of the children to Mother was in their best interests. Rather, the court carefully considered the factors relevant to the best interests of the children analysis and appropriately awarded primary physical custody. View "Van Duysen v. Van Duysen" on Justia Law

The circuit court granted a divorce to Husband and Wife on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Husband appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) determining that the interest and penalties on the parties’ IRS tax liability was Husband’s nonmarital debt; (2) awarding spousal support of $1,000 per month to Wife for a period of ten years to follow the sale of the marital home; and (3) ordering Husband to pay all mortgage, insurance, and property-tax payments on the marital home until its sale. Further, the Court held that Husband must pay Wife’s appellate attorney fees. View "MacKaben v. MacKaben" on Justia Law

During their marriage, Brian Shabino and Sandra Wichman borrowed money from Sandra’s mother, Mary Ann Wichman, to use as a down payment on the purchase of their home. When Sandra and Brian divorced in 2003, the divorce decree apportioned to Brian the marital home as well as the remaining debt to Mary Ann. Brian failed to repay Mary Ann, In 2012, Mary Ann brought suit for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and enforcement of the divorce decree. The circuit court concluded that a portion of Mary Ann’s breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that Mary Ann could not enforce the terms of the divorce decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in determining that Mary Ann could not enforce the divorce decree; and (2) the circuit court did not err in ruling that Mary Ann could not recover the entirety of the debt under the statute of limitations. View "Wichman v. Shabino" on Justia Law

Amanda Pfuhl obtained a temporary protection order against her husband Jason. One month later, the circuit court continued the protection order for another month and appointed counsel, Tressa Kool, for the couple’s minor children. After the matter was heard again, the protection order was dismissed for failure to provide sufficient evidence. Kool subsequently sought costs related to her appointment. The circuit court ordered that Minnehaha County (“Minnehaha”) pay Kool $1094. Minnehaha appealed. On appeal, the circuit court argued that S.D. Codified Laws 26-8A-18 required the appointment counsel for the minor children and required ordering Minnehaha to pay appointed counsel’s costs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court lacked statutory authority in this case to order Minnehaha to pay appointed counsel’s costs because section 26-8A-18 applies to the particular subject of a child’s status or condition, and that was not the particular subject of the proceeding the circuit court presided over. View "Pfuhl v. Pfuhl" on Justia Law

After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated Father and Mother’s parental rights to their biological children, M.S., age two, and K.S., age one. Father’s and Mother’s history up until this time included rampant drug use and terms of incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by finding Mother’s efforts futile in the face of the children’s need for permanency; and (2) good cause existed for terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father, as neither parent met their burden to prove the factual basis of the court’s application of S.D. Codified Laws 26-8A-21.1 or 26-8A.26.1 was in error. View "In re M.S." on Justia Law

When Mother and Father divorced, Mother alleged that Father sexually abused one of the parties’ two children. The circuit court granted sole physical custody of the children to Mother and granted Father supervised visitation. Mother appealed, arguing, among other things, that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting Father visitation. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s visitation order, holding that the circuit court erroneously concluded that it could not prohibit visitation and applied the incorrect burden of proof to the allegations of sexual abuse. Remanded for a determination of whether visitation with Father was in the children’s best interests. View "Pieper v. Pieper" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in Oregon in 2008, and the Oregon court granted Mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child. Although Father was granted supervised visitation at least once a month, Father visited the child on two occasions only. Father also failed in general to pay child support. Mother later moved to South Dakota and eventually married Stepfather. Mother and Stepfather subsequently initiated proceedings for adoption of the child. The trial court waived Father's consent to the adoption, terminated his parental rights, and entered the order for adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in waiving Father's consent to the adoption and in determining that it was in the best interest of the child to grant the stepparent adoption. View "In re Adoption of Z.N.F." on Justia Law

Jesse and Elizabeth, who were married with two children, were divorced in 2009. The divorce decree awarded primary physical custody of the children to Elizabeth and granted visitation to Jesse. After Elizabeth remarried and her husband accepted a job in California, Elizabeth filed a motion to relocate. The circuit court determined that it was in the best interests of the children to move to California and awarded Elizabeth $3,500 in attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) admitting and relying on certain evidence in making its determination; (2) determining that relocation was in the best interests of the children; and (3) awarding Elizabeth $3,500 in attorney fees. View "Brosnan v. Brosnan" on Justia Law