845 N.W.2d 366
S.D.2014Background
- Mother (27) and Father (26) have two young children at issue (daughter age 2, son age 1); both parents have histories of substance abuse, criminal convictions, and repeated DSS involvement.
- DSS received multiple reports beginning in 2010 (marijuana use during pregnancy, positive UAs, child injuries/neglect); parents absconded from treatment and had periods of incarceration.
- Both children were adjudicated abused or neglected in 2012; DSS obtained legal custody and placed the children in foster care; the two cases were consolidated.
- Father spent most of the children’s lives incarcerated or unavailable; he had subsequent drug and felony charges and inconsistent participation in services and visits upon release.
- Mother engaged in programming and completed classes while incarcerated, but remained incarcerated with a projected release in June 2015, creating a lengthy delay to reunification and ongoing risk concerns.
- The circuit court terminated both parents’ rights, finding statutory exceptions to the reasonable-efforts requirement (SDCL 26-8A-21.1) and statutory grounds for termination (SDCL 26-8A-26.1); parents appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State’s Argument | Mother/Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was the least restrictive alternative in the children’s best interests | Termination appropriate because children need permanence; statutory grounds supported termination | Parents argued termination was clear error because they had made progress (esp. Mother in prison) and less-restrictive options existed | Affirmed — court did not clearly err; children’s need for stability outweighed parents’ progress given incarceration and history |
| Whether DSS provided reasonable efforts to reunify or exceptions applied | DSS invoked statutory exceptions (chronic substance abuse with documented neglect; prolonged/incarceration making parent unavailable) making reasonable-efforts requirement inapplicable | Parents argued DSS failed to make reasonable efforts (Mother sought narrow equitable exception given her compliance in prison; Father contested) | Affirmed — court properly applied SDCL 26-8A-21.1 and SDCL 26-8A-26.1; parents failed to rebut factual findings and thus waived or lost the argument |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.L., 707 N.W.2d 841 (S.D. 2005) (addresses best-interest/least-restrictive analysis and statutory grounds for termination)
- In re A.S., 614 N.W.2d 383 (S.D. 2000) (upholds termination where mother’s incarceration prevented timely reunification despite in-prison compliance)
- People ex rel. D.B., 670 N.W.2d 67 (S.D. 2003) (discusses trial court discretion to bypass reasonable-efforts requirement under SDCL 26-8A-21.1)
- In re A.L., 442 N.W.2d 233 (S.D. 1989) (principle that appellate court will affirm if trial court is right for any reason)
- People ex rel. C.H., 510 N.W.2d 119 (S.D. 1993) (parents bear burden to prove factual findings are erroneous)
- St. John v. Peterson, 804 N.W.2d 71 (S.D. 2011) (defines abuse of discretion standard)