Court Opinion

ID: 9732588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:27:09.138927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:29.919083
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
This is another erosion of recent prece-dential vitality. I dissent on the custody issue.
The trial judge did not interview the children and obtain their viewpoints. He did not order a home study. With respect to the latter, this is a classic example of disregarding an important decision in our court, namely Williams v. Williams, 425 N.W.2d 390 (S.D.1988). If we do not honor our words and holdings, who will?
The majority opinion does not set forth the facts. In doing so, it covers up this mother’s harmful conduct to these children. Mother's live in boyfriend impregnated her; he was an alcoholic; mother and live in *727boyfriend slept together, in presence of children; he had serious mental problems; he cannot hold a job for any length of time; he beat the two children and mother tolerated it (mother admitted this); and she testified that her amorous conduct to this live in boyfriend was not harmful to the children. Father deplored all of this ribald conduct and quit supporting wife; soon he was in contempt. The trial court was extremely biased against him. This is why he lost his case on custody. The findings of fact are clearly erroneous. In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455 (1970). And the conclusions of law are against the law. Permann v. South Dakota Dept. of Labor, Unemployment Ins. Div., 411 N.W.2d 113 (S.D.1987).
Justice Miller is authorized to state that I join his dissent.