Court Opinion

ID: 9670931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:28:25.196567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.309571
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurs in result).
I concur in the result of this opinion but disapprove of the language citing Kolb v. Kolb, 324 N.W.2d 279 (S.D.1982) (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
After considering affidavits and testimony pertaining to facts subsequent to the decree, the trial court entered fifteen findings of fact and five conclusions of law, the essence of which is contained in Conclusion of Law 5:
There having been a substantial and material change of circumstances since the Decree of Divorce was entered, and *50the welfare and best interests of the children so requiring, and Larry Hansen being a fit and proper person to have the custody of the children, he is the proper person to have custody and it shall be awarded to him accordingly.
Therefore, this ease should be reviewed under the two-prong test set forth in three recent cases including Engels v. Engels which holds:
[T]he parent seeking modification of custodial rights has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) there has been a substantial and material change of circumstances since the decree of divorce was entered, and (2) the welfare and best interests of the children require the modification being sought.
Engels, 297 N.W.2d 489, 491 (S.D.1980) (citing Menning v. Menning, 272 N.W.2d 828, 829-30 (S.D.1978)). See also, Sneesby v. Davis, 308 N.W.2d 565 (S.D.1981), and Martin v. Martin, 306 N.W.2d 648 (S.D.1981). Under the holding of In Re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455 (1970), the findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. This was a classic case of where two country boys were put in the city (streets of Phoenix) but they couldn’t take the country out of the boys. The family farm was the rock of their existence. Tearfully, the one boy told the judge he would not return to his mother’s custody under any circumstances and would run away if required to return to Phoenix. Yes, facts subsequent to a decree are meaningful.