People Ex Rel. E.M.H.
2015 SD 101
| S.D. | 2015Background
- Child was removed from mother's custody two days after birth and placed with foster parents who had adopted Child’s older half‑sister.
- Maternal grandmother initially sought custody/adoption but DSS had concerns; Aunt completed required licensing/home study and was approved by DSS.
- After parental rights were terminated, DSS consented to adoption by the foster parents rather than Aunt, primarily to keep Child with her adopted sister and because Child had bonded with foster parents.
- Aunt requested a hearing under SDCL 26‑8A‑29.1, arguing relatives are entitled to placement preference over nonrelatives in adoptions.
- The circuit court found DSS did not abuse its discretion; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding placement preference is conditioned on the child’s best interest and that foster parents qualified as custodians (not relatives).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aunt) | Defendant's Argument (DSS/Foster Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a relative have statutory placement preference over a nonrelative in adoptive placement? | Aunt: The 2005 statutes give relatives sole preference over nonrelatives for adoptive placement. | DSS: Preference exists but is subordinate to the child’s best interest; foster parents qualify as custodians and placement with them served best interest. | The Court: Preference applies only if placement with the relative is in the child’s best interest; relatives are not entitled to preference otherwise. |
| Are foster parents "relatives" under SDCL 26‑7A‑19/19.1? | Aunt: Foster parents should be treated as relatives because they adopted Child’s sister and are effectively family. | DSS: Foster parents are custodians (adoptive parents of sibling), not "relatives" as defined by statute. | The Court: Foster parents are not "relatives" under the statutory definition; they are custodians of the sibling. |
| Was DSS’s decision procedurally flawed for not separately applying placement preference? | Aunt: DSS failed to meaningfully consider the statutory relative preference; decision must be remanded. | DSS: DSS considered factors; best‑interest analysis was primary and satisfied statutory scheme. | The Court: No procedural flaw—statutory preference is conditioned on best interest; DSS did not abuse discretion. |
| Did the circuit court clearly err in finding adoption with foster parents served Child’s best interest? | Aunt: Aunt is suitable and nothing shows she would be unsuitable; sibling placement preference should prevail. | DSS/Foster parents: Bond between Child and foster parents and keeping siblings together favors foster placement. | The Court: No clear error; keeping Child with sibling and existing bond supported best‑interest finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. Cinna Bakers LLC, 864 N.W.2d 17 (S.D. 2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People ex rel. P.K., 711 N.W.2d 248 (S.D. 2006) (best‑interest findings are factual and reviewed for clear error)
- Simunek v. Auwerter, 803 N.W.2d 835 (S.D. 2011) (siblings generally should not be separated absent compelling circumstances)
- Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 591 N.W.2d 798 (S.D. 1999) (discusses sibling separation as a factor in best‑interest analysis)
- Wiedenfeld v. Wiedenfeld, 774 N.W.2d 288 (S.D. 2009) (reiterating best interests of the child as the paramount consideration)