965 N.W.2d 880
S.D.2021Background:
- Ame and Matthew Batchelder divorced in 2020; custody was joint and parties were ordered to communicate primarily via the OurFamilyWizard (OFW) app.
- Ame filed an initial protection-order petition (TPO 20-369) in July 2020; a temporary ex parte order issued and was extended; the September 8 hearing’s record is incomplete and the petition was dismissed on December 7 when Ame failed to appear.
- On December 7, 2020 Ame filed a second petition (TPO 20-726) alleging misuse of the OFW app, violation of the earlier temporary order, and suspected electronic monitoring; a new temporary ex parte order issued.
- At the January 4, 2021 hearing on TPO 20-726 Ame testified briefly about OFW misuse and suspected tracking but did not testify to threats, violence, or fear of harm; Matthew did not testify and there was no other evidence.
- The circuit court entered a one-year permanent protection order restricting Matthew’s proximity to Ame and limiting OFW communications, checked a preprinted box finding domestic abuse, but made no specific oral or written factual findings and said the order was intended to ease co-parenting tensions rather than to apply protection-order law.
- Matthew appealed, arguing the order lacked factual and legal justification and that collateral estoppel from the earlier proceeding barred relitigation; the Supreme Court reversed the permanent protection order.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ame) | Defendant's Argument (Matthew) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by entering a permanent protection order without factual or legal justification | The protection order was appropriate to stop OFW misuse and protect Ame; court’s checked finding suffices | The order lacked required specific findings and was issued for improper reasons (to manage co-parenting), so it is infirm | Reversed: court failed to make specific factual findings and used the protection-order remedy to manage a high-conflict custody relationship rather than applying the statutory legal standard for domestic abuse |
| Whether collateral estoppel barred relitigation of issues decided in TPO 20-369 | (Implicit) prior dismissal did not bar consideration of new allegations in TPO 20-726 | The September 8 proceeding resolved issues and precludes relitigation in the second action | Not reached on the merits: record was inadequate to identify what, if anything, was decided in the earlier hearing; reversal on other grounds made the issue unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Bear Runner, 916 N.W.2d 127 (S.D. 2018) (standards for reviewing protection-order findings and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Toft v. Toft, 723 N.W.2d 546 (S.D. 2006) (appellate court may decide appeals without further findings when able)
- Doremus v. Morrow, 897 N.W.2d 341 (S.D. 2017) (findings must be sufficient to permit meaningful review under statutory elements)
- Goeden v. Daum, 668 N.W.2d 108 (S.D. 2003) (exigencies of protection proceedings do not excuse failure to make crucial-element findings)
- Shroyer v. Fanning, 780 N.W.2d 467 (S.D. 2010) (reversal where court merely concluded domestic abuse occurred without supporting findings)
- Repp v. Van Someren, 866 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 2015) (need for specific findings to permit meaningful appellate review)
- Castano v. Ishol, 824 N.W.2d 116 (S.D. 2012) (reversal where court’s statements did not indicate which version of evidence it believed)