Van Duysen v. Van Duysen, 871 N.W.2d 613

Travis and Jennifer Van Duysen divorced after separation; they share two minor children (born 2005 and 2010).
A home-study evaluation favored Travis for primary physical custody based mainly on two incidents and findings on fitness/harmful parental conduct; it found Jennifer was primary caretaker.
At a two-day bench trial, parties disputed details of a church Christmas incident and a missed/late pickup that involved police; testimony and credibility were contested.
The circuit court reviewed Fuerstenberg factors, questioned the weight given to the two incidents, and declined to adopt the home-study recommendation.
The court awarded primary physical custody to Jennifer based on her role as primary caregiver, the children’s need for stability, the daughter’s well-being and counseling feedback, and its assessment of witness credibility.
Travis challenged certain factual findings (notably the court’s comments about his tax returns and truthfulness) as unsupported and argued the court abused its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding primary physical custody to Jennifer	Court relied on findings unsupported by evidence (e.g., statements about Travis’s tax deductions and truthfulness), so custody award was an abuse of discretion	Court appropriately weighed evidence, credibility, and best-interests factors and permissibly rejected the home-study recommendation	No abuse of discretion; custody award to Jennifer affirmed

Pietzrak v. Schroeder, 759 N.W.2d 734 (S.D. 2009) (sets abuse-of-discretion standard and deference to trial court credibility/weight determinations)
Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 591 N.W.2d 798 (S.D. 1999) (identifies factors to govern child custody determinations)
Pieper v. Pieper, 841 N.W.2d 781 (S.D. 2013) (trial court discretion over what evidence to rely on in custody matters)
Mokrejs v. Mokrejs, 226 N.W. 264 (S.D. 1929) (unsupported subsidiary findings do not require reversal where established facts support the judgment)