Court Opinion

ID: 9736820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:07:35.843676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:54.869073
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in result).
There is but one facet of this opinion which causes me to concur in result. In my past writings, I have taken the position that minimum statutory guidelines should not turn a judge into a robot nor an automaton. Feltman v. Feltman, 434 N.W.2d 590 (S.D.1989); Donohue v. Getman, 432 N.W.2d 281, 283 (S.D.1988) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); Peterson v. Peterson, 434 N.W.2d 732, 739 (S.D.1989) (Henderson, J., concurring in part and concurring in result in part). We need an independent judiciary, infusing judgment into cases and not to be bound by the dictates of Washington, D.C. bureaucrats who would strip us of our experience and brain power. Therefore, language in this opinion is conceptually unpalatable to those previous writings. Here, the trial judge did not act as a robot or an automaton but actually set the child support obligation at an amount less than the then-existing statutory guideline. In other words, the trial court exercised its discretion based upon Connie’s need for child support and Jerome’s financial ability to pay. Findings of Fact VII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, and XIV display the trial judge’s independent exercise of judgment. In fact, these Findings reflect that the trial judge concluded that Jerome’s “monthly net income is at least $1,578.80.” His conclusion concerning the child support obligation for three (3) children was “[it] shall be established in the sum of $578.00 per month ...” This is expressed via Conclusions of Law VII and VIII. So, I would conclude that this trial judge did not appear to be “obliged” to be a robot or an automaton.
Is the battle for trial judges to finally engineer their minds — with a degree of independence — finally at end? Note to those domestic practitioners and readers of the fine print: A 1989 amendment, by the South Dakota State Legislature SDCL 25-7-6.10 expresses:
Deviation from the schedule in SDCL 25-7-6.2 shall be considered if raised by either party and made only upon the entry of specific findings based upon any of the following factors.
(2) Any financial condition of either parent which would make application of the schedule inequitable;
Ah, the Lady of Equity is back at our door.* “Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright; it seems she hangs upon the cheek of night like a rich jewel in an Eth-iop’s ear.”
William Shakespeare, in Sonnets
CVI, Romeo and Juliet I.v.
She is imbued with beauty and needs a tender judicial application.
It is noted, in the current opinion that the phrase “abused its discretion” is mentioned four times under the procedural history, issues, and child support discussion. The same phrase is mentioned three times under the “social security benefits” discus*539sion. On issue three, the same phrase is used twice.

The National Law Journal, February 5, 1990, carries a feature on Mandatory Child Support Guidelines, pg. 1. In same, the second sentence thereof expresses:
But, judges and lawyers are decrying what they see as separation of powers violations by the drafters of such guidelines.
This article is a national expose on Mandatory Child Support guidelines. Therein, the dissent, by this writer in Feltman is quoted (only as part of the expose and not, tacitly, with approval or disapproval). A 24-page opinion, Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (87-1259) written by Chief Judge Judith W. Rogers of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, overturned the District's guidelines. Per the clerk’s office, this case has been "reopened" and there is no official cite as yet. In said decision, she expressed "... numeric formulae make it difficult to ascertain what assumptions are being made.” With respect to attempting (by a litigant) to argue against application of the guidelines, Chief Justice Rogers wrote that the litigant "... faces a monumental obstacle in attempting to demonstrate a case is ‘exceptional’ without knowing what ‘unexceptional’ is.” Has South Dakota, I pose, eradicated a constitutional challenge by the above-mentioned amendment which now, apparently re-inculcates the power of discretion of a trial judge in South Dakota?