Shelstad v. Shelstad
927 N.W.2d 129
S.D.2019Background
- Parties divorced in South Dakota on May 16, 2014; the divorce judgment incorporated a custody stipulation awarding primary physical custody to Sandra.
- After Sandra relocated with the children to Minnesota for over six months, Duane filed to modify custody in South Dakota; Sandra moved to vacate for lack of jurisdiction.
- Duane had a conviction for violating a protection order entered for Sandra; Sandra alleged additional instances amounting to a history of domestic abuse.
- The circuit court retained jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (exclusive, continuing jurisdiction from the 2014 custody determination), found Duane did not have a history of domestic abuse, concluded Duane rebutted the statutory presumption against awarding him custody, and awarded primary physical and legal custody to Duane.
- Sandra appealed, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, erroneous findings on domestic abuse and the statutory presumption (SDCL 25-4-45.5), and that the custody award was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sandra) | Defendant's Argument (Duane) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under UCCJEA | South Dakota lacked home-state jurisdiction because children lived in Minnesota >6 months when Duane moved to modify custody | South Dakota had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because Sandra filed the 2014 custody action and the court made an initial custody determination then | Court: SD retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction from 2014 custody decree; denial of motion to vacate affirmed |
| Whether Duane has a "history of domestic abuse" (SDCL 25-4-45.5(3)) | Sandra: Duane’s conviction plus other incidents establish a history of domestic abuse by greater convincing force | Duane: Only one conviction established; other alleged incidents were not proven by greater convincing force | Court: Trial court’s credibility findings supported conclusion Duane did not have a history of domestic abuse; no clear error |
| Whether Duane rebutted the statutory presumption against awarding custody to an abusive parent | Sandra: Rebuttal was insufficient; court relied improperly on time spent with children and interaction rather than evidence that prior issues are resolved | Duane: Presented substantial, credible evidence (witnesses, context of conviction, character testimony) to rebut presumption | Court: Evidence met the substantial, credible evidence standard; presumption rebutted; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Custody award (best interests factors / abuse of discretion) | Sandra: Court misapplied factors, overstated Duane’s stability and punished her for relocation; custody award was an abuse of discretion | Duane: Duane was more stable (home, employment), relocation was harmful to children, both parents fit but overall best interests favored Duane | Court: Findings supported by record; court reasonably weighed stability, harmful conduct, caretaking, and best interests; custody award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Reaser v. Reaser, 688 N.W.2d 429 (S.D. 2004) (jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Van Duysen v. Van Duysen, 871 N.W.2d 613 (S.D. 2015) (child custody reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Pietrzak v. Schroeder, 759 N.W.2d 734 (S.D. 2009) (abuse of discretion includes scant review of best-interest factors)
- Pieper v. Pieper, 841 N.W.2d 781 (S.D. 2013) (trial court findings reviewed for clear error)
- Langdeau v. Langdeau, 751 N.W.2d 722 (S.D. 2008) (UCCJEA jurisdiction requirement)
- Merrill v. Altman, 807 N.W.2d 821 (S.D. 2011) (effect of stipulation/judgment on custody determination under UCCJEA)
- Moulton v. Moulton, 904 N.W.2d 68 (S.D. 2017) (interpretation of "initial custody determination" language)
- Stavig v. Stavig, 774 N.W.2d 454 (S.D. 2009) (requirement to consider convictions/history of domestic abuse and presumption)
- McCollam v. Cahill, 766 N.W.2d 171 (S.D. 2009) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In re Estate of Dimond, 759 N.W.2d 534 (S.D. 2008) (definition of "substantial, credible evidence" to rebut a presumption)
- Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 591 N.W.2d 798 (S.D. 1999) (primary caretaker factor considers past responsibility to child)
- Zepeda v. Zepeda, 632 N.W.2d 48 (S.D. 2001) (best interests of the child is controlling standard)