Opinion ID: 901914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Capacity and disposition to provide the child with protection, food, clothing, medical care and other basic needs.

Text: [¶ 47.] The trial court's finding of fact number six was as follows: Each parent adequately provides for Thomas's protection, food, clothing, medical care and basic needs. (Emphasis added.) During the court's comments before issuing its order, it stated its belief that the capacity and disposition to provide Thomas with food and other basic needs was equally met: I find that there have been delays in paying child support that are troubling. On the other hand, I am aware of the vicissitudes of farming and the issues of lenders and cash flow approval. [¶ 48.] South Dakota Codified Law 25-7-6.1 provides in relevant part: The parents of a child are jointly and severally obligated for the necessary maintenance, education, and support of the child in accordance with their respective means. A parent's duty to support his child is paramount, and all other debts are secondary to that duty. Jasper v. Smith, 540 N.W.2d 399, 404 n. 4 (S.D.1995) (citing Brunick v. Brunick, 405 N.W.2d 633, 634 (S.D.1987)). This Court has previously held that the self-serving testimony of a parent standing alone is insufficient without corroboration to establish a defense that a party cannot pay his child support. Sazama v. State ex rel. Muilenberg, 2007 SD 17, ¶ 20, 729 N.W.2d 335, 343 (citation omitted). [¶ 49.] Mike was able to avoid the contempt proceedings scheduled at the end of the custody trial by paying his back child support in the amount of $3,570.00 the week before trial and $2,530.78 in medical expenses on day two of the trial. However, the trial court failed to give sufficient weight to Mike's two and one-half year refusal to pay the full amount of the court ordered child support. Mike, instead, equated his failure to do so and insistence on paying only $150.00 per month in child support toward Thomas's needs as a byproduct of being a cash-strapped farmer, rather than a concerted effort on his part to avoid any increase to his temporary child support payment. There is nothing in our statutes or this Court's precedent that excuses a parent from timely paying child support due to the cash flow limitations of farming or any other profession. Nothing allows a parent to unilaterally set a lower amount for that support in defiance of a valid court order. [¶ 50.] There is nothing in the record to indicate Mike adequately provided for Thomas's basic needs within his respective means. Mike's suggestion that the taxpayers of the State of South Dakota should provide his child's health insurance coverage through Title XIX is equally indicative of a parent who is unwilling to provide basic necessities for his child from his own resources. [¶ 51.] There was substantial evidence that appears to have been disregarded by the trial court concerning the manner in which Mike denied Thomas these basic necessities for two and one-half years prior to the custody trial. Mike did so despite a finding by a child support referee, based in part on Mike's own documents, that Mike had a net worth of over $660,000.00 at that time. [2] [¶ 52.] To suggest that a father with a net worth over $600,000.00 and cash flow limitations from his farming operation should be excused from timely paying a $363.00 monthly child support obligation is an invitation to any parent experiencing financial difficulties (real or imagined) to refuse to comply with support obligations. Furthermore, Mike's repeated use of the legal system to deny Joleen child support payments for Thomas was not appropriate parental conduct. While Mike undoubtedly thought he was the victim of the child support referee's report and recommendation, the true victim was Thomas, whose mother struggled financially to provide Thomas with basic necessities during these endless legal battles. [¶ 53.] The trial court's finding of fact on Mike's ability and willingness to provide for Thomas's basic needs was clearly in error. While we find clear error in the trial court's findings of fact, that alone is not enough. We must also determine whether the trial court made a `fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.' Heinen, 2008 SD 63, ¶ 10, 753 N.W.2d at 894 (quoting Arneson, 2003 SD 125, ¶ 14, 670 N.W.2d at 910 (internal citation omitted)). The trial court's discretion is not abused when it selects between two satisfactory options, which for child custody purposes means selecting between two loving parents with little to distinguish one over the other. See id. (citing Ameson, 2003 SD 125, ¶ 14, 670 N.W.2d at 910). Thus, in our review of an ultimate decision on custody, we decide only whether the court abused its discretion. Id. [¶ 54.] This was not a case of choosing between two equally satisfactory parents. The difference between the parents that becomes clear on review is their respective ability and willingness to provide for Thomas's basic food, shelter and clothing needs. Mike demonstrated a clear disregard for Thomas's wellbeing when he fought tooth and nail to maintain his child support obligation for Thomas at $150.00 per month, especially in light of Joleen's modest part-time income, higher education expenses, and lack of assets. Mike used the full power of his financial resources to keep from paying an additional $213.00 per month for the basic necessities of life for his child. Instead, Mike expended at least $3,678.61 for Joleen's attorney fees which he was court ordered to pay, in addition to his own legal expenses. As previously noted, Mike finally paid his overdue child support in the amount of $3,570.00 the week before trial and $2,530.78 in medical expenses on day two of the trial. Unfortunately, the trial court did not permit inquiry into the issue of Mike's failure to timely pay his child support obligations. While the trial court did find Mike's past failure to pay his support obligation troubling, it found it was not a serious concern. [¶ 55.] On review, we consider Mike's failure to adequately support his child of grave concern. A parent who argues poverty while at the same time expending thousands of dollars to fight a $213.00 monthly increase in child support would not concern us as much if that parent had paid the child support while opposing the increase. Mike's failure to adequately provide for his child cannot be justified. Paramount means just that  paramount with no caveats.