INTEREST OF A.L. AND D.L., 2026 S.D. 46

Mother was incarcerated in federal prison throughout the abuse-and-neglect case and appealed only the denial of her continuance requests, not the termination ruling itself. 1
Mother had a long history of drug abuse, drug trafficking, and prior Department involvement concerning her children. 2
In August 2017, police stopped Mother with D.L. and A.L. in the car and found methamphetamine and prescription pills on her person. 3
After Mother’s federal conviction, the Children later lived with Father, but in 2024 reports of domestic violence and D.L.’s suicide threat led the Department to take custody. 4
Mother sought continuances because she had a pending compassionate-release motion in federal court, but the circuit court denied delay and proceeded to termination. 5
The circuit court found ICWA and best-interest grounds for termination, and Mother appealed the continuance rulings only. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could judicially notice the later compassionate-release order 7	Mother urged notice of the federal release order to support her appeal.	State argued the order was outside the record and irrelevant to the continuance ruling.	Judicial notice denied; the later order was not proper appellate material. 8
Whether denying Mother’s continuance requests was an abuse of discretion 9	Mother said the pending release motion justified waiting before termination.	State and children sought permanency; Mother’s release was uncertain.	No abuse of discretion. 10
Whether the court ignored traditional continuance factors 11	Mother claimed the court failed to weigh prejudice, bad faith, and prior delays.	State responded the discretionary best-interest analysis controlled.	No reversible error; the court’s decision was within permissible discretion. 12

State v. Rederth, 376 N.W.2d 579 (S.D. 1985) (appeals are decided on the trial record; no new evidence or disputed-fact notice 13)
Strong v. Gant, 843 N.W.2d 357 (S.D. 2014) (appendix cannot substitute for a settled record 14)
Mendenhall v. Swanson, 889 N.W.2d 416 (S.D. 2017) (judicial notice applies only to undisputed adjudicative facts 15)
In re Est. of Flaws, 811 N.W.2d 749 (S.D. 2012) (courts may notice related decisions only when directly related to matters at issue 16)
In re A.S., 614 N.W.2d 383 (S.D. 2000) (courts should not speculate about a parent’s release from custody 17)
People ex rel. L.N., 970 N.W.2d 531 (S.D. 2022) (continuance review is abuse of discretion; child permanency and stability matter 18)
Jessop v. Combs, 30 N.W.3d 1 (S.D. 2025) (continuance rulings are reversed only for the most cogent reasons 19)
Anderson v. Streeter, 33 N.W.3d 51 (S.D. 2026) (lists four factors that may guide continuance decisions 20)
In re Adoption of C.T.E., 485 N.W.2d 591 (S.D. 1992) (older case describing continuance factors as mandatory considerations 21)
Meadowland Apartments v. Schumacher, 813 N.W.2d 618 (S.D. 2012) (same proposition on continuance factors 22)
VOR, Inc. v. Est. of O'Farrell, 17 N.W.3d 252 (S.D. 2025) (continuance factors are considerations guiding discretion 23)