Opinion ID: 2018236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: contracts unacceptable

Text: I do not and will not legally bless any contract entered into between Mr. and Mrs. A. and the Department of Social Services and base a decision upon an alleged violation thereof. The question before a court of law should not be whether a contract was violated, but rather whether a child has been neglected and the termination of the parental rights was proper under our state statutes and decisions of this court. Nor would I found a decision based upon a violation of a condition in a stipulation. To specifically waive a dispositional hearing and deem it to be sufficient if the parents show a lack of cooperation with a proposal set forth in item 6, is a dangerous pact which usurps the legitimate function of a trial judge. I am fearful of a state agency's judgment replacing the judgment of a judge. In State v. Prosser, 78 S.D. 35, 43, 98 N.W.2d 329, 334 (1959), we stated: Moreover, the parties cannot by agreement make the recommendation of such an agency binding upon the court since the power of the court to determine matters of custody cannot be delegated to anyone. I fully appreciate that Prosser, supra, was a habeas corpus proceeding. And I fully appreciate that this case is neither habeas corpus or a child custody case. However, I do not wish to see a growing use in this state of compacts, contracts, and stipulations between parents and the Department of Social Services regarding the custody of children in dependency and neglect cases which will further erode the powers of the judiciary.