Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Mother and Father were married in 1997 and had five children together. Mother later filed for a divorce, and a decree of divorce was filed in 2010. The parties stipulated to joint legal custody with Mother having primary physical custody of the children. Following a domestic violence incident between Mother and Mother's new husband, Father sought permanent change of custody for the five children. The trial court granted temporary custody of the children to Father, after which Mother divorced her new husband. A permanent custody trial was later held, after which the trial court awarded joint legal custody and primary physical custody to Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in the best interests of the children that Father be awarded primary physical custody. View "Severson v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had Child out of wedlock. Following their separation, Mother retained primary physical custody of Child. Father later filed a motion for change of custody. The trial court determined that it was in Child's best interests that Father have primary physical custody of Child. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based on its "balanced and thorough analysis" of the applicable factors provided in Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in the best interests of Child for Father to have primary physical custody; and (2) the parties' individual motions for appellate attorney fees were denied. View "Roth v. Haag" on Justia Law

The mother of three girls (Mother) signed a petition to voluntarily terminate her parental rights, attesting in an affidavit that she believed it to be in the best interests of her children for her children to remain with their father and to be adopted by his wife. After a termination hearing, the circuit court found Mother had voluntarily consented to the termination of her parental rights and ordered permanent termination. The court then entered judgment declaring the children to be the adopted children of their stepmother. Mother later moved to vacate the judgment terminating her parental rights, alleging fraud upon the court because she was "secretly paid" monetary consideration and given "secret promises" of continued visitation with her children. The court denied Mother's motion to vacate, ruling that Mother failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in balancing undisclosed side agreements and unsettled arrangements for continued parent contact with the children's need for stability and finality. View "In re Termination of Parental Rights of Ibanez" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 1997. As part of their divorce, Mother and Father entered into an agreement regarding payment of their children's post-high school educational expenses. The parties' youngest child, Jason, took five years to complete his undergraduate degree and was accepted into several master's degree programs. At the end of Jason's senior year of college, Father began to dispute his obligation to continue paying his share of Jason's educational expenses. The circuit court found that the parties' agreement was unambiguous and ordered Husband to pay his share of the expenses associated with Jason's fifth year of undergraduate studies and Jason's first year of graduate school. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the agreement was intended to include graduate school and was not limited to an undergraduate education; and (2) Father was obligated to pay his pro-rata share of Jason's fifth year of college. View "Roseth v. Roseth" on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who were unmarried, had a child in 2002. In 2008, Father was awarded primary physical custody of the child. In 2012, Father petitioned to increase Mother's child support obligation because he lost his job and was unemployed. After a hearing, the referee recommended that Mother's obligation be reduced because Father had received part of an inheritance and expected to receive the balance of that inheritance in the near future. The circuit court adopted the referee's recommendation and reduced Mother's child support obligation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Father's inheritance could not be considered when calculating Mother's child support obligation without a finding that the child's needs were not being met through Father's and Mother's income. Remanded. View "Crawford v. Schulte" on Justia Law

Wife and Husband were married in 1997. Wife, who was diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, was declared disabled in 2002. In 2011, Husband initiated divorce proceedings. Husband's attorney (Attorney) prepared the marital termination agreement and affidavits. After a meeting with Attorney, Wife signed the agreement, which gave Husband the marital home, two vehicles, a utility trailer, Husband's retirement accounts, stocks, bonds, checking and saving accounts, and life insurance. Wife received approximately eight percent of the property, and she waived alimony. The judgment and decree of divorce were filed in September 2011. Wife subsequently filed a motion to set aside the judgment, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits, holding that Wife demonstrated exceptional circumstances constituting excusable neglect and a probable meritorious defense. View "Geier v. Geier" on Justia Law

Shirley Murphy (Mrs. Murphy), who was ninety years old at the time of this action, had four adult daughters, Dee, Shirley, Claudia, and Mary (collectively, Daughters). In May 2012, Claudia obtained an appointment as Mrs. Murphy's temporary guardian and conservator. Both Claudia and Shirley petitioned to serve as permanent guardian and conservator. After a trial, the circuit court appointed Claudia permanent guardian and conservator. On September 5, 2012, notice of entry of the order appointing Claudia was served on Daughters. On October 10, 2012, Shirley served notice of her appeal by mail on Mrs. Murphy and Daughters. Claudia moved to dismiss Shirley's appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Shirley failed to timely serve her notice of appeal on all the parties to the action, and her appeal must be dismissed. View "In re Guardianship of Murphy" on Justia Law

When Peggy Nelson was ninety-one years old, she executed a durable power of attorney giving John Rice numerous powers over her personal and financial affairs. When Peggy was ninety-four years old, her niece and nephew petitioned the circuit court to appoint a guardian and conservator for Peggy and her estate, alleging that Rice was plundering Peggy's estate by misuse of the power of attorney. The circuit court subsequently appointed a temporary emergency guardian and conservator for Peggy to protect her personal and financial interests. After the circuit court extended the appointment of the temporary emergency guardian and conservator, Rice requested the court to set aside its previous orders as void due to the court's failure to follow regular procedures in the proceeding. The court denied Rice's petition. Rice appealed, contending that the court's failure to follow the mandates of the South Dakota Guardianship and Conservatorship Act extinguished the court's jurisdiction to appoint the guardian and conservator. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded the matter for the court to fulfill the requirements of the Act, including its continued administration of the guardianship and conservatorship. View "In re Guardianship of Nelson" on Justia Law

In 2010, Husband sought a divorce from Wife on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The trial court granted the divorce. In its judgment and decree of divorce, the trial court denied Wife's request to relocate to New York City with the couple's two minor children, granted Husband and Wife joint legal and physical custody of the children, implemented a custody schedule, ordered Husband to pay Wife child support, resolved disputed property issues, and denied Wife's request for attorney fees. Wife appealed several the trial court's determinations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's decisions as to custody, child support, property division, and attorney fees were not an abuse of discretion. View "Schieffer v. Schieffer" on Justia Law

Daughter was born with cerebral palsy and developmental disabilities. Daughter's Father and Mother later divorced. After Daughter turned eighteen, a California court appointed Mother as Daughter's guardian and conservator. Mother subsequently moved to South Dakota with her new husband and Daughter. Thereafter, Father sought to end Mother's role as guardian and conservator. After a hearing, a South Dakota circuit court terminated Mother's appointment as guardian and conservator for Daughter, finding that Mother failed adequately to address Daughter's obesity and transition to more independent living. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) preventing Mother from questioning attorneys appointed to represent Daughter about certain statements attorneys made in an investigative report, as the report was not entered into evidence at the hearing; and (2) removing Mother as Daughter's guardian and conservator, as Mother did not make significant progress toward the goal of moving Daughter into an independent residential living situation and failed promptly and aggressively to manage the issue of Daughter's weight. View "In re Guardianship of Stevenson" on Justia Law