Title: Engels v. Engels

State: south-dakota

Issuer: South Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

297 N.W.2d 489 (1980) Alan Keith ENGELS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. June Deloy ENGELS, now June Deloy Anderson, Defendant and Appellee. No. 12815. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Submitted on Brief of Appellant April 21, 1980. Decided October 22, 1980. Rehearing Denied December 1, 1980. Alan Keith Engels, pro se. HENDERSON, Justice. This is a pro se appeal by Alan Keith Engels, appellant, from a judgment and order of the trial court denying appellant's motion for modification of a divorce decree so as to provide him with the custody of his minor children. The children's mother, formerly June Deloy Engels (appellee), filed no brief. We affirm. On September 28, 1976, a decree was entered by the trial court divorcing appellant from appellee. The decree ordered custody of the parties' minor children to appellee. The children were six, five, and four years of age as of September 1976. No appeal was ever taken from this decree. However, on December 7, 1978, appellant filed a motion to vacate and reverse the decision of the trial court as set forth in the divorce decree of September 28, 1976. Specifically, appellant prayed for care, custody, and control of the three minor children. The trial court considered appellant's requested relief *490 as being a motion to modify the decree. Upon hearing the testimony of appellant, appellee, and their respective witnesses on January 5, 1979, the trial court entered the following Findings of Fact: Under its Conclusions of Law, the trial court stated: A judgment and order were entered April 11, 1979, denying appellant's motion to amend the divorce decree. Appellant prepared and filed 25 assignments of error. This Court, however, recognizes that only one basic legal question is involved. Upon review this Court must give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses and its findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. SDCL 15-6-52(a). The trial court has broad discretion in awarding custody of minor children and this Court will not interfere with that discretion unless the record presents a clear case of abuse. Holforty v. Holforty, 272 N.W.2d 810 (S.D. 1978); Pochop v. Pochop, 89 S.D. 466, 233 N.W.2d 806 (1975); Masek v. Masek, 89 S.D. 62, 228 N.W.2d 334 (1975). SDCL 30-27-19, as in effect during this case,[*] provides that in awarding custody of minor children the trial court is to be guided by the following considerations: Furthermore, SDCL 25-4-45 states: This Court has recently adopted the rule that: Menning v. Menning, 272 N.W.2d 828, 829-30 (S.D. 1978); citing Masek v. Masek, 90 S.D. 1, 237 N.W.2d 432 (1976). We have reviewed the record in conjunction with appellant's contentions and have not found a substantial or material change of circumstances to warrant a modification of the divorce decree. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to modify its original determination of custodial rights. The judgment and order of the trial court is affirmed. All the Justices concur. [*] SDCL 30-27-19 has been modified to eliminate the "tender years" doctrine as previously provided in SDCL 30-27-19(2).