Court Opinion

ID: 9689355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:28:43.545841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:47.237381
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
Had the trial court entered findings of fact consistent with those entered by the majority opinion and then awarded custody to appellant, I probably would have joined in affirming the decision. As it is, however, although the majority opinion purports to follow the principles that this court is to apply when reviewing custody awards, it then goes on to reach that result which it feels the trial court should have reached.
In Watt v. Watt, 312 N.W.2d 707, 709-10 (S.D.1981), we said:
In reviewing a trial court’s findings, we must give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh their testimony. The court’s findings will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. SDCL 15-6-52(a); In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455 (1970). Moreover, in reviewing findings of fact, we accept that version of the evidence, together with any reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, that is favorable to the trial court’s determination.
The trial court found that appellant “would not be able to provide a stable influence upon the children in view of his threats in the past to burn down the house, the threats of suicide, and the [appellant’s] whimsical attitude toward his work . . . . ” With respect to the suicide threats, appellee testified as follows:
A. He [appellant] got really upset and he took this gun from the top of the mantle in the dining room and he said you don’t need me anymore, you’re all better off without me and I said what are you talking about and he started to go out the door and then I realized what he was doing and I begged him not to go and I pleaded with him and I tried to stop him at the door and he raised his hand with the gun in his hand as if he was going to hit me with the butt of the gun and this went on for several minutes in front of the children. They were standing within five feet of us.
Q. What were the children doing?
A. They were crying.
Q. Were you crying?
A. Yes, sir.
*131Q. Did you know whether or not the gun was loaded?
A. I did know he kept loaded guns in the house all the time.
Q. Did you think he was going to commit suicide?
A. Yes.
Q. On other occasions has your husband admitted to you that he had mental problems?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you believe that when he told you that?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you afraid of him?
A. Very much so.
Q. In any event, after you pleaded with him not to kill himself, what happened?
A. Eventually he walked out of the house and he got halfway across the yard towards the barn. Regan was standing there and she let out a scream and he just stopped. She just kept screaming, then eventually he came back and put the gun up. He said you’re better off without me, I’m going away. He started walking and I didn’t see him for I supposed [sic] about two or three hours.
To characterize this suicide threat as “insubstantial” is to reduce what must have been a terror-filled experience for appellee and her children to the level of a daily segment of a television soap opera.
Likewise, the majority brushes aside appellant’s threats to burn down the house by pointing out that only appellee testified to these threats (as if her testimony required corroboration), and by pointing out that appellant did nothing to carry out his threats. As with the suicide threat, one can only be relieved that appellant did not carry out the threats to burn down the home, but' that is hardly reason to dismiss the threats as having no bearing upon his emotional stability and perforce his fitness to have custody of the children.
To say that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of the children to appellee is not to laud appellee’s fitness as a parent, for truly the trial court was faced with a situation where both parents had manifested, appellee by her indulgence in her hedonistic view of life and appellant by his emotional instability, their profound shortcomings as custodial parents. Cf. Madson v. Madson, 313 N.W.2d 42 (S.D.1981). Faced with a difficult decision and having the benefit of judging the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses during a trial that resulted in some 379 pages of transcript, the trial court reached a decision that finds support in the evidence and therefore should not be reversed on appeal merely because the members of this court do not approve of appellee’s life-style.
I am authorized to state that Justice FOSHEIM joins in this dissent.