12 N.W.3d 139
S.D.2024Background
- Fawna and Terry Goff married in 2015, had one child together, and lived in South Dakota until Terry left for Texas in late 2021.
- Terry established a new relationship in Texas, and eventually refused to return their child, M.G., after an extended visit.
- Fawna filed for divorce in South Dakota, obtaining an emergency order for the child's return, and primary custody was granted to her by the trial court.
- Terry later initiated divorce proceedings in Texas while failing to timely respond in the South Dakota case, prompting a combined default hearing and trial in SD.
- At trial, the court granted Fawna a divorce on grounds of adultery, awarded her primary custody and child support, divided marital property, limited Terry’s visitation to South Dakota, and ordered partial attorney fee reimbursement.
- Terry appealed on multiple grounds, leading to partial affirmance and partial reversal by the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fawna) | Defendant's Argument (Terry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by trying merits at default hearing | Did not object to combining hearing/trial | Was not given proper notice; should have only held default hearing | Terry waived objection; trial on merits was proper |
| Calculation of child support arrearages | Arrearages correctly calculated | Should get credit for months child lived with him | Court abused discretion; must reevaluate arrearages |
| Limiting visitation to South Dakota only | Supported limitation due to best interests | Limitation unjustified and unsupported by evidence | Reversed; court must make explicit findings |
| Award of attorney fees | Fees justified by defendant’s intransigence | Relevant factors not considered | Reversed and remanded for specific findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Schieffer v. Schieffer, 826 N.W.2d 627 (S.D. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for child custody, support, and property division)
- Roso v. Henning, 566 N.W.2d 136 (S.D. 1997) (default judgment only appropriate for unresponsive parties; requirements for opposing default)
- Nickles v. Nickles, 865 N.W.2d 142 (S.D. 2015) (standards and required findings for attorney fee awards)
- Pieper v. Pieper, 841 N.W.2d 781 (S.D. 2013) (best interests of the child as primary guide for visitation)
- Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 591 N.W.2d 798 (S.D. 1999) (factors for evaluating best interests in visitation/custody)