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

Heading: Modification Consistent with Best Interests of Children

Text: Since the parties originally stipulated to custody in the divorce decree, the court was not required to find substantial change in circumstances before modifying that prior agreement. Hulm v. Hulm, 484 N.W.2d 303, 305 (S.D.1992). Custody was to be resolved solely in the best interests of the children. SDCL 25-5-7.1; SDCL 30-27-19 (repealed 1993 S.D.Sess.L. ch. 213, § 172; reenacted in relevant part, 1994 S.D.Sess.L. ch. 192, and codified at SDCL 25-4-45); McKinnie v. McKinnie, 472 N.W.2d 243 (S.D.1991) (citing Nauman v. Nauman, 445 N.W.2d 38, 39 (S.D.1989)). In determining the best interest of the children, the court must be guided by what appears from all the facts and circumstances to be in the best interest of the children's temporal, mental and moral welfare. Yarnall, 460 N.W.2d at 163-64. In Yarnall this court further stated: The children's welfare must be considered over the legal rights and claims of the parents. Id. at 164. This court in Nauman, 445 N.W.2d at 39, addressed a virtually identical fact scenario as the one at bar. The trial court changed custody from the Mother because she refused to comply with visitation and fostered alienation between the children and their father. A psychologist, who examined the Nauman children, testified that their mental health would suffer unless they had consistent ongoing contact with both parents. The Nauman court refused to find an abuse of discretion. Similarly, in Janke, this court affirmed a change of custody where the trial court found the father demanding, critical, and has constantly attempted to drive a wedge between the [Mother] and the children[.] 500 N.W.2d at 211. This court found such emotionally manipulative behavior on the part of a parent toward his children unacceptable and not in the best interest of the children[.] Id. at 211. In the case at bar, psychologist testimony indicated the children's emotional health requires an end to Collin's outward hostilities toward Gail. [3] Reviewing the witnesses' testimony, Collin has chartered a course of action to exclude Gail from the children's lives. The trial court found that he willfully engaged in a continuous and intensive course of conduct designed to alienate the children's affections for their mother. He refused to let the children talk to Gail on the phone and repeatedly called her vulgar names in front of them. He obstructed Gail's letters and packages from reaching the children. He has threatened violence against Gail and other individuals in front of the children. He has consistently thwarted visitation between them. The trial court further found that such alienation has seriously harmed the emotional well-being and normal development of these children. This is evidenced by the children's reactions to Gail. For example, Kayla, age 8, threatened suicide if she had to stay with her mother. The trial court stated there was no explanation for the way the children react with regard to their mother, other than being coached by Collin. Collin has also elected to continue intimate relations with various women while the children are present in the house, albeit out-of-sight. He believes the children need to grow up fast and have only allowed them to perceive the world and reality through his ideas and perceptions. Collin's perspective, when directed toward Gail, is controlled by hatred. [4] He has gone to the extent of calling Gail's new husband a molester in front of the children, although allegations of such abuse were wholly unsubstantiated. Meyer further testified that Collin could be dangerous. When asked for her reasons, she replied: Because you have a combination of a man who's paranoid ... [and] who deals with his problems from anger. He has a misperception of what reality is and he has a need to control. You put those four elements in a can and you've got an explosion. [5]  Numerous other social workers, law enforcement and judicial personnel have felt threatened and intimidated by Collin. It is clear upon review of the record that the trial court modified custody in the best interests of these children. The record clearly supports the trial court's findings of fact. Janke, 500 N.W.2d at 211. Collin focuses on all parts of the record which favor his position in requesting a reversal. However, it is our duty to review the record as a whole to see whether or not the evidence supports the trial court's decision to modify. Friendshuh v. Headlough, 504 N.W.2d 104, 105 (S.D.1993); Hanhart v. Hanhart, 501 N.W.2d 776, 778 (S.D.1993); Henle v. Larson, 466 N.W.2d 846, 849 (S.D.1991). As shown above, there is abundant evidence to support the trial court's decision. Therefore, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in changing custody from Collin to Gail. Affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and SABERS and KONENKAMP, JJ., concur. GILBERTSON, J., not having been a member of the Court at the time this case was submitted, did not participate.