Sweeney v. Joneson

12 Citing cases

  1. Meldrum v. Novotny

    640 N.W.2d 460 (S.D. 2002)   Cited 16 times
    In Meldrum, a majority of this Court held that even though the natural parent was fit, the trial court should look at the best interests of the child in determining whether an unrelated third party should have custody.

    The law presumes that the best interests and welfare of a minor will be best served by awarding its custody to the parent and the burden is upon those who claim otherwise to overcome such presumption by clear and satisfactory proof of abandonment or forfeiture or a legal surrender or unfitness of the parent to have custody. Guardianship of Sedelmeier, 491 N.W.2d 86, 87 (S.D. 1992) (quoting Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 216, 63 N.W.2d 249, 251 (1954)). This Court has further recognized that "[i]n legal contests between a parent and a nonparent for the custody of a child the threshold question is: Is the parent unfit to have the custody of the child? . . . Without unfitness being established, there is no necessity to look to the best interest of the child."

  2. Hanhart v. Hanhart

    501 N.W.2d 776 (S.D. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    When the mother, by irresponsible conduct, indicates that her care and custody would be detrimental to the welfare of the child, custody may be awarded to the father. Hines v. Hines, 78 S.D. 464, 104 N.W.2d 375 (1960); Blow v. Lottman, 75 S.D. 127, 59 N.W.2d 825 (1953); Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 63 N.W.2d 249 (1954). You will not see that case cited either.

  3. Matter of Guardianship of Sedelmeier

    491 N.W.2d 86 (S.D. 1992)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that unfitness of parent must be established before the best interest of the child can be addressed in a parent versus non-parent custody battle

    (emphasis supplied).Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 216, 63 N.W.2d 249, 251 (1954). In Blow v. Lottman, 75 S.D. 127, 129-131, 59 N.W.2d 825, 826-27 (1953), this Court said:

  4. Termination of Parental Rights Over J.M.J

    379 N.W.2d 816 (S.D. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    In a contest concerning the custody of a minor child, the best interests and welfare of a child are of paramount and controlling interest. Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 216, 63 N.W.2d 249, 251 (1954). Although parents have a fundamental right to their children, it is not an absolute and unconditional one.

  5. Langerman v. Langerman

    336 N.W.2d 669 (S.D. 1983)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that grandmother was not entitled to custody of grandchild simply because she may have been a better caretaker than child's biological father

    Blow v. Lottman, 75 S.D. 127, 59 N.W.2d 825 (1953). See also Langerman v. Langerman, supra; Application of G.K., 248 N.W.2d 380, 384, n. 4 (S.D. 1976); Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 63 N.W.2d 249 (1954); Ex Parte Summers, 43 S.D. 617, 181 N.W. 831 (1921); Haglund v. Egge, 41 S.D. 433, 171 N.W. 212 (1919); and Engle v. Yorks, 7 S.D. 254, 64 N.W. 132 (1895). SDCL 30-27-23 provides:

  6. Langerman v. Langerman

    321 N.W.2d 532 (S.D. 1982)   Cited 5 times
    Granting child custody to one other than a parent requires a showing of gross parental misconduct, unfitness, or extraordinary circumstances affecting child welfare

    When someone other than another parent challenges the custody of a parent a clear showing of gross misconduct, unfitness or other extraordinary circumstances affecting the child's welfare is required.Application of G.K., 248 N.W.2d 380, 384, n. 4 (S.D. 1976) (citation omitted); see also Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 63 N.W.2d 249 (1954). Other jurisdictions have adopted South Dakota's position on non-parental custody:

  7. Matter of Adoption of Ernst

    318 N.W.2d 353 (S.D. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    When the mother died, for all intents and purposes, the custody determination of the divorce decree was terminated. See SDCL 25-5-7; Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 63 N.W.2d 249 (1954); Kienlen v. Kienlen, 227 Minn. 137, 34 N.W.2d 351 (1948). To maintain his rights as a father, he should have come forward and asserted his parental right to custody.

  8. Hanks v. Hanks

    296 N.W.2d 523 (S.D. 1980)   Cited 59 times
    Noting that "relative fault of the parties has generally been removed as consideration with respect to property division"

    When the mother, by irresponsible conduct, indicates that her care and custody would be detrimental to the welfare of the child, custody may be awarded to the father. Hines v. Hines, 78 S.D. 464, 104 N.W.2d 375 (1960); Blow v. Lottman, 75 S.D. 127, 59 N.W.2d 825 (1953); Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 63 N.W.2d 249 (1954). The trial court has broad discretion in awarding custody of minor children, and this Court will not interfere with that discretion unless the record presents a clear case of abuse. Holforty v. Holforty, 272 N.W.2d 810 (S.D. 1978); Pochop v. Pochop, 89 S.D. 466, 233 N.W.2d 806 (1962).

  9. Spaulding v. Spaulding

    278 N.W.2d 639 (S.D. 1979)   Cited 25 times
    In Spaulding v. Spaulding, 278 N.W.2d 639, 641 (S.D. 1979), Justice Fosheim stated: "If the mother's misconduct is committed in the presence of a child old enough to see and recognize her improprieties as such, then the harmful effect of her bad conduct upon the child is self-evident."

    When the mother, by irresponsible conduct, indicates that her care and custody would be detrimental to the welfare of the child, custody may be awarded to the father. Hines v. Hines, 78 S.D. 464, 104 N.W.2d 375 (1960); Blow v. Lottman, 75 S.D. 127, 59 N.W.2d 825 (1953); Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 63 N.W.2d 249 (1954); and Septka v. Septka, supra. Whether Kody and Kacee Spaulding were of tender years was a fact question for the trial court to determine, and the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that both boys were leaving the age of tender years and were entering upon the stage of their youth when the benefits of association with their father must be considered.

  10. Septka v. Septka

    122 N.W.2d 766 (S.D. 1963)   Cited 12 times

    Custodial preference under the statute is subordinate, however, to the discretionary power of the court to safeguard the best interests of the child. Howells v. Howells, 79 S.D. 480, 113 N.W.2d 533. Where the mother by irresponsible conduct indicates that her care and custody would be detrimental to the welfare of the child or she is unable adequately to care for the child custody may be awarded to the father, or in extreme cases to someone else. Hines v. Hines, 78 S.D. 464, 104 N.W.2d 375; Blow v. Lottman, 75 S.D. 127, 59 N.W.2d 825; Sweeney v. Joneson, 75 S.D. 213, 63 N.W.2d 249. The record consisting of the testimony of the plaintiff and defendant and seventeen witnesses is voluminous and no good purpose would be served by a detailed review.