Purcell v. Begnaud
2017 SD 23
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Sarah Purcell petitioned for a protection order on June 2, 2016, seeking orders against Gregory Begnaud and their two minor children (ages 7 and 8).
- Purcell alleged Begnaud had relapsed on methamphetamine twice in the preceding month and testified to a past incident in which Begnaud raised his fist toward her but did not hit her; no allegations in the petition claimed Begnaud harmed or threatened the children.
- At a June 27, 2016 hearing Purcell testified about a locked-door meeting where she felt "in harm’s way," but the children were not present and the locked-door incident was not in the petition.
- The circuit court granted a three-year protection order prohibiting Begnaud from all contact with Purcell and the children, with no visitation or supervised-contact provision discussed.
- Begnaud appealed only the portions of the order affecting the children, arguing there was no evidence the children were victims of domestic abuse and that the no-contact, three-year ban was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court properly barred all contact between Begnaud and minor children for 3 years | Purcell: Begnaud’s substance relapse and potential for violence justified broad protection for children | Begnaud: No allegation or evidence he harmed or threatened the children; order not statutorily authorized or supported by the record | Reversed as to the children: order unauthorized and an abuse of discretion |
| Whether petition met statutory pleading requirements as to the children | Purcell: Court could consider risk of future violence and overall circumstances | Begnaud: Petition and affidavit failed to allege domestic abuse against children as required by SDCL 25-10-3 | Petition was facially defective for children—did not allege domestic abuse |
| Whether court made required factual finding that children were victims of domestic abuse | Purcell: Court implicitly weighed evidence and found risk justified relief | Begnaud: Court made no explicit finding as to the children; required by SDCL 25-10-5 | Court failed to make required finding; checked form box but record shows finding applied only to Purcell |
| Whether complete no-contact order was appropriately tailored | Purcell: Protective breadth justified by relapse risk | Begnaud: Order overbroad; court could have allowed supervised visitation | Order overbroad; even if abuse found, less restrictive supervised-contact options existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Repp v. Van Someren, 866 N.W.2d 122 (S.D. 2015) (standard of review for protection-order decisions)
- Shroyer v. Fanning, 780 N.W.2d 467 (S.D. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard and appellate review of findings)
- MacKaben v. MacKaben, 871 N.W.2d 617 (S.D. 2015) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Gartner v. Temple, 855 N.W.2d 846 (S.D. 2014) (abuse of discretion discussion)
- Beermann v. Beermann, 559 N.W.2d 868 (S.D. 1997) (burden: preponderance of the evidence in domestic-abuse petitions)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights protected by Due Process Clause)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due process standards in child custody contexts)
- In re Guardianship of S.M.N., 781 N.W.2d 213 (S.D. 2010) (parental rights precedent cited in custody context)