Court Opinion

ID: 9685428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:37:10.907125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:05.796206
License: Public Domain

*124HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring).
As a reviewing body, in determining if this trial judge abused his discretion, there are additional considerations which buttress an affirmance in this case.
Under questioning, the mother testified:
Q. Now, you don’t have a job available now in California?
A. No.
* # * * * *
Q. Why do you think it would be in the best interests of the children to grow up in California rather than Tripp County?
A. I am not saying it’s better for them to grow up there. The advantage is that I would be able to give them more security.
Q. Would you be able to replace what the father could give to them?
A. No.
Also, the mother testified that she had not applied for a job in Winner, South Dakota, different from the one that she presently had “because the job I have now fits my lifestyle for my children.” She is an employee of the State of South Dakota. Explaining, she testified that “I can be home most of the day with the children and then still make money to support myself.”
Mother testified that there was a strong bond between the father and children. Finding No. 12 of the trial court reflects a consistency demonstrated by the father in visitation accompanied with love and affection, on an almost daily basis.
These children are not geographically confined against their will. At their tender age, how could they possibly be in a frame of mind whereby they are required to remain against their will? Nancy was born on May 25, 1984; Tracy was born November 17,1985; and Bryan was born April 20, 1987. It is not the will of the children involved which spawns a desired move to California; it is obvious that it is the will of the mother. At the time that the trial judge entered his decision, the mother was about to birth Bryan and she had no permanent abode in California nor employment lined up in California. Considering her personal circumstances and the tender age of these children, plus the very quick application (after the decree) for a permission to move to California, it is easy to understand why the judge ruled the way he did. I call to the attention of the Bar the case of Ulver v. Ulver, 76 S.D. 371, 78 N.W.2d 830 (1956), which holds, inter alia, that the personal desires of the parents must yield to that which the court regards as the best interests of the child.