Court Opinion

ID: 9741853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:03:05.020512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:26.807408
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in all respects except as to the complete termination of Keith’s child support obligation. In this case, the custodial parent should provide the children with meals when they visit the noncustodial parent.
All the parties in this case, including the children, appear to be comfortable with the freedom the children have been given in determining the frequency and nature of their visitations with their mother. Because Judy is financially unable to provide meals for the children when they visit, the children may be discouraged from visiting her and she may be discouraged from having them visit. To preserve the opportunities for visitation between the children and their mother, the trial court should have set some reasonable amount of monthly support sufficient to allow her to provide meals during the visits. The record indicates that Keith has the ability to pay, that Judy does not, and that Keith’s payment of some support would be in the best interests of all the parties, including the children. The amount of support set by the trial court for the purpose of providing meals should take into consideration the chil*816dren’s needs and the financial ability of their parents to meet those needs. Brunick v. Brunick, 405 N.W.2d 633 (S.D.1987).
The term “abuse of discretion” refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence, [citation omitted] The amount of child support depends upon the reasonable needs of the child, i.e., the reasonable expenditures suitable to the child’s circumstances at the time of the divorce and the payor’s financial situation, i.e., ability to pay. Barrett [v. Barrett, 308 N.W.2d 884 (S.D.1981) ] ...; Wallahan v. Wallahan, 284 N.W.2d 21 (S.D.1979).
Gross v. Gross, 355 N.W.2d 4, 7 (S.D.1984).
“The most important factor which should be employed by trial courts in setting a child support obligation is the needs of the children.... The needs of the children must then be apportioned between the parties based upon each parent’s ability to pay.”
Hood v. Hood, 335 N.W.2d 349, 351 (S.D.1983).
Therefore, I would affirm except for a remand to further determine reasonable monthly support amounts to be paid by, Keith for these meals.