908 N.W.2d 775
S.D.2018Background
- Father (Howlett) and Mother had a child, L.S.; Mother was a minor when pregnancy began and later lived with her mother (Grandmother).
- Grandmother became primary caretaker of L.S. within the child’s first year; Mother did not seek primary custody and had instability and legal problems.
- Grandmother obtained a temporary guardianship in May 2015; Father sued to terminate the guardianship and obtain custody.
- The custody trial court applied the Fuerstenberg parental-versus-parent framework and awarded Grandmother full physical custody; Father received liberal visitation.
- Father moved for reconsideration arguing the dispute should be analyzed under SDCL 25-5-29/25-5-30 (nonparent custody statutes) and that the court erred by treating the case as a parent-vs-parent contest; temporary guardianship later lapsed.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the court must analyze parent v. nonparent custody claims under SDCL 25-5-29/25-5-30 rather than Fuerstenberg.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Howlett) | Defendant's Argument (Grandmother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by applying Fuerstenberg (parent v. parent factors) instead of the parent-vs-nonparent statutory framework | Court should have required Grandmother to rebut Father’s presumptive parental right under SDCL 25-5-29/25-5-30 before awarding custody | Grandmother argued Fuerstenberg was appropriate because Father filed against both Mother and Grandmother and relied on evidence of extraordinary circumstances | Reversed: court must apply SDCL 25-5-29 and 25-5-30 for nonparent custody claims and more clearly analyze whether the parental presumption was rebutted |
| Whether Grandmother had standing to seek custody as a nonparent | Father argued standing was not properly found/expressed by the court | Grandmother showed she had been primary caretaker and had a bonded parental role | Held: Grandmother had standing under SDCL 25-5-29; standing was not a barrier to litigation |
| Whether Father waived the statutory-framework argument by not timely objecting | Grandmother claimed failure to timely object waived the issue | Father preserved the argument via proposed findings and motion to reconsider | Held: Father preserved the issue for appeal; no waiver |
| Whether factual findings supported extraordinary circumstances to overcome parental presumption | Father argued existing findings did not show abandonment, forfeiture, or extraordinary circumstances | Grandmother pointed to primary-caretaker status, strong bond, and potential harm if moved | Held: Record lacked the clear statutory analysis under SDCL 25-5-29/25-5-30; remand required for proper application of that framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of their children)
- Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 591 N.W.2d 798 (S.D. 1999) (nonexclusive factors for resolving custody disputes between parents)
- Veldheer v. Peterson, 824 N.W.2d 86 (S.D. 2012) (review standards for custodial awards implicating parental rights)
- Aguilar v. Aguilar, 877 N.W.2d 333 (S.D. 2016) (nonparent may obtain custody by proving extraordinary circumstances under SDCL 25-5-29/25-5-30)
- Meldrum v. Novotny, 640 N.W.2d 460 (S.D. 2002) (discussion of the threshold question in parent v. nonparent custody contests)