Court Opinion

ID: 9724314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:52:33.673351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:59.231110
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in part; concurring in result in part).
I concur on standard of review, Issues One, Two and Three. All of these three issues reverse the trial court. However, with reference to Issue Three, the child support formula is so complicated that we have forsaken, at least outwardly, the abuse of discretion test. It has not been mentioned in this opinion. I am suggesting that this test should be recognized rather than abolished by implication. I have never fully abandoned such a rule. Neither has this Court. Nelson v. Nelson, 454 N.W.2d 533 (S.D.1990); Peterson v. Peterson, 434 N.W.2d 732 (S.D.1989); Havens v. Henning, 418 N.W.2d 311 (S.D.1988).
*96As regards Issue Four, and particularly a requested deviation under SDCL 25-7-6.10(2), the record causes father to lose this point, i.e., that he had depleted his savings and only had social security disability payments as a resource. As this case is being reversed on the first three grounds, equity would demand that he be permitted to establish if he is totally, financially strapped and only has disability payments to purchase the necessities of life. He is receiving approximately $950 per month so it would superficially appear that he can afford some child support. The question before the house is: How much? Heretofore, my position has been, and continues to be, that if a financial condition of either parent makes the application of the schedule inequitable, that the schedule not be followed blindly. To the extent of my remarks, I concur in result on Issue Four. My concurrence in result is restricted only to SDCL 25-7-6.10(2) and 25-7-6.10(9). Perhaps footnote 11 saves, constitutionally, this statement: “Since the older son [17 years old] is not a subsequent child, no deviation is appropriate for him under SDCL 25-7-6.10(9).” In my opinion, children are children, be they previous children, subsequent children, children of a first or second marriage, or an illegitimate child. See, Feltman v. Feltman, 434 N.W.2d 590 (S.D.1989) (Henderson, J., dissenting).1 They are entitled to equal protection of the law.2 As I expressed in my writing, they are no less hungry or naked without the support of their father. I questioned as follows: “Should we weep for children of the second marriage at their birth rather than at their death?” Feltman at 593. All children are God’s children and they are not children of a lesser God. They come into the world without benefit of some hy-pertechnical statutory guideline, originally dreamed up by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who say, in effect, “You accept these guidelines or we give you no money for aid to dependent children.”
Although I generally agree with Issue Five, after the reverse and remand on all of the issues, the trial court, in my opinion, might not be able to be a judicial accountant by which he must divide a premium into the number of people to determine the father’s proportionate share. A mechanistic approach might not be feasible when the other issues, on child support, are resolved or being resolved. Circuit judges are constitutional officers and should not be tethered to a child support picket. Animals are picketed.

. This section was added, by the State Legislature, becoming effective July 1, 1989. My dissent in Feltman was published which reflected that Feltman was decided on January 11, 1989. This is not vanity but could be a rather safe conclusion: This section was added due to the verbiage in my dissent or the substance of my constitutional concerns.

. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal ...” Declaration of Independence. Article 14, United States Constitution: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" ... (If I’m a child of a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd marriage, I have a right to say “you’re my daddy” — “you should feed me”). Same Article 14 states: “... Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Powerful medicine, my legal brothers.