Court Opinion

ID: 9732589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:27:09.14223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:29.919742
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(dissenting).
Although I agree with much of what the majority says, I dissent on the custody issue. The majority’s analysis of the trial court’s findings and conclusions is correct, as far as it goes, but fails, I suggest, to make the appropriate ultimate determination because the trial court had insufficient evidence before it to make this important decision.
There was absolutely no objective testimony from a grandparent, teacher, social worker, counselor, physician, or any professional to give the court guidance as to what determination is in the best interests of these children. There was no home study of either party. The entirety of the evidence was through the testimony of the parties, mother’s boyfriend (a laborer with a weed control business), father’s cousin (a “sanitary engineer”), and his cousin’s wife. These people simply did not have the education, training, or background to meaningfully assist the trial court in the decision making process.
Much like in Williams v. Williams, 425 N.W.2d 390 (S.D.1988), the trial court was in the position of deciding which parent was “the least worst” because the parties concentrated more on damning each other’s conduct than in addressing the best interests of the children.
I do not fault the trial court for not personally visiting with the children (most often that is not at all productive), BUT, I am convinced it erred in not demanding production of more evidence. As we said in Williams:
At the very least, trial courts have the authority, and at times the obligation, to require a homestudy of both parents, so it can be assured that the children are not placed, or do not remain, in surroundings seriously detrimental to their well-being- In addition, the court may, in its discretion, call and interrogate witnesses.
Id. at 393 (citations omitted).
I respectfully suggest that this is one of those situations where the trial court had the obligation to do more. Judges in these cases have the awesome responsibility to protect children and “[t]he parents’ personal wishes and desires must yield to what the court in the discharge of its duty regards as the children’s best interest.” Jasper v. Jasper, 351 N.W.2d 114, 117 (S.D.1984); Williams, supra, at 393.
In sixteen years as a trial judge, and having heard scores of such cases, I was never able to find a crystal ball to assist me in making the difficult decision of where to place kids. Although I doubt it, perhaps this trial judge has found the magic solution. Otherwise, from the paucity of evidence, the decision was rendered purely on the basis of instinct, speculation, guesswork or chance. The decision may be correct and in the best interests of the children; however, the record does not afford us a meaningful review. I have great respect for this trial judge but am unwilling to give him the blind deference the majority does.
I would reverse and remand for further proceedings so that the trial court and this court can be assured that the best interests of the children are served. The children are entitled to and deserve no less.