Aguilar v. Aguilar
2016 S.D. 20
| S.D. | 2016Background
- Tony and Brittany Aguilar have one daughter, M.A. (b. 2011); while M.A. was an infant Brittany struggled with heroin addiction and Tony had an ongoing criminal history and was incarcerated shortly after M.A.'s birth.
- While Tony was on work furlough in 2011 he arranged for Brittany’s mother Koree and sister Tosha to take M.A. to South Dakota for care; Tosha has been M.A.’s primary caregiver since before M.A. was six months old.
- Tony later completed some rehabilitation steps (GED, parenting classes, substance-abuse classes), was released in 2013, became engaged, and attempted in December 2013 to take M.A. back to Arizona; Tosha resisted and involved police.
- Tony filed for divorce and sought custody; Tosha intervened seeking custody for M.A.’s stability until a parent could properly care for her.
- The circuit court found extraordinary circumstances under SDCL 25-5-29/-30 (primary caregiving, potential emotional harm from uprooting, and abandonment/persistent neglect) and awarded custody to Tosha; Tony appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aguilar) | Defendant's Argument (Tosha) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred awarding custody to nonparent on extraordinary-circumstances basis | Court failed to explicitly find Tony fit or unfit, so his parental preference deserved deference | Extraordinary circumstances exist (Tosha primary caregiver long-term; uprooting would harm child; Tony abandoned/neglected) | Affirmed: extraordinary-circumstance finding (primary caregiver) rebuts presumptive parental right |
| Whether primary-caregiver status may be an extraordinary circumstance | Primary-caregiver status should not rebut parental custody presumptively | SDCL 25-5-30(3) permits rebuttal where nonparent provided child’s needs over significant period | Held: primary-caregiver status is an established extraordinary circumstance sufficient to rebut parental presumption |
| Whether anticipated emotional harm from uprooting child is ‘‘serious detriment’’ | Emotional-harm finding speculative; court overstated impact | Removal from child’s only known home would cause serious emotional harm | Court found emotional-harm alternative ground but relied primarily on primary-caregiver finding (no need to reach other grounds) |
| Whether court properly considered child’s best interest | Court failed to expressly analyze best interests after finding extraordinary circumstances | Court expressly found custody with Tosha was in M.A.’s best interest and made findings about Tosha’s stable, nurturing care | Held: court did consider and explicitly find placement with Tosha served M.A.’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental rights presumption and deference to fit parents)
- Clough v. Nez, 759 N.W.2d 297 (S.D. 2008) (primary-caregiver long-term can constitute extraordinary circumstance rebutting parental presumption)
- Veldheer v. Peterson, 824 N.W.2d 86 (S.D. 2012) (clear-and-convincing evidence required to prove extraordinary circumstances)
- Meldrum v. Novotny, 640 N.W.2d 460 (S.D. 2002) (discussion of extraordinary circumstances relevant to custody disputes)