Opinion ID: 1700579
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proper Custody Adjudication

Text: Since this case began as a visitation dispute, Collin argues the trial court erred when it adjudicated custody because neither party motioned for modification. The court, however, determined a full-blown custody hearing was necessary due to Collin's refusal to allow positive contacts between Gail and the children. We believe the trial court acted within its authority. SDCL 25-4-45 provides: In an action for divorce, the court may, before or after judgment, give such direction for the custody, care and education of the children of the marriage as may seem necessary or proper, and may at any time vacate or modify the same. (Emphasis added.) According to this language, the legislature has granted trial courts the power to determine custody either before or after judgment and may at any time ... modify custody so long as modification is in the best interests of the child. Id.; see Kolb v. Kolb, 324 N.W.2d 279 (S.D.1982). This court in Swenson v. Swenson, 529 N.W.2d 901 (S.D.1995) further emphasized a trial court as parens patriae of the children must insist that more be done when the children's best interests are at stake. Id. at 904 (quoting Williams v. Williams, 425 N.W.2d 390, 393 (S.D.1988)). It is the trial court's duty to see that the children are protected at every turn ... The parents' personal wishes and desires must yield to what the court, in the discharge of its duty, regards as the children's best interest. Swenson, 529 N.W.2d at 904 (citation omitted). This record reflects an acrimonious relationship between two divorced parents, resulting in the constant filing of orders to show cause as shown above. The evidence shows parents who both have faults. After reviewing the voluminous record of the numerous disputes between the parties and listening to live testimony on the latest motion, the trial court made a determination that this post-decree conduct on the part of the parents was not in the best interests of the children. The court ordered the parties to undergo psychological evaluation and home-studies. It was obvious to the trial court that the children were innocent victims being impacted by the hostility between two divorced parents. Given the record, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the custody hearing. Such action was within its authority, via statute and case law, to ensure these children's best interests remained the primary focus of this protracted litigation.