Court Opinion

ID: 9668245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:07:17.390707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:44.071652
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Justice,
concurring in the result.
Less than two years ago this court held that an abatement of child support can only be granted “after the fact” relying upon the definition of the word abatement and the report of the 1988 South Dakota Commission on Child Support. Whalen, 490 N.W.2d at 282, 285 (Henderson, J., dissenting on other grounds). Now, the majority reverses that holding (claiming modification) by concocting a new phrase, i.e., “forward-reaching abatement.”
As pointed out in the Whalen opinion, “abatement” means to demolish; to put an end to; to do away with; or to nullify, make void, or diminish. Id. at 282. To put the matter in proper perspective, something has to exist before it can be abated. If the change is made before the occurrence — in this case, the child support — there is nothing to abate. The Commission made it very plain, stating, “the proposed language provides an after-the-fact abatement!)]”
My argument is not with the result in this case in terms of the calculation of child support, but with the “modification” of Whalen. I believe we should maintain some consistency in our decisions, so the public, judges, and lawyers can rely on our decisions. Secondly, I do not believe that we should engage in what amounts to judicial legislation, but leave enactment of the laws to the legislature.