Truly, the right to support belongs to the children. Weegar v. Bakeberg, 527 N.W.2d 676, 679 (S.D. 1995)(Amundson, J., concurring specially)(right to support is, fundamentally, right of the child). Thus, parents may not by private act or agreement bargain it away. Estes v. Albers, 504 N.W.2d 607, 609 (S.D. 1993).

[A]t least one justice of this Court has articulated that "the right to support belongs to the children." [ In re] Loomis, 1998 SD 113, at ¶ 31, 587 N.W.2d [427] at 432 (J. Konenkamp, dissenting) (citing Weegar v. Bakeberg, 527 N.W.2d 676, 679 (S.D. 1995)). Additionally, "parents may not through misconduct or mistake prejudice their children's right to support."

[¶ 22.] Furthermore, at least one justice of this Court has articulated that "the right to support belongs to the children." Loomis, 1998 SD 113, at ¶ 31, 587 N.W.2d at 432 (J. Konenkamp, dissenting) (citing Weegar v. Bakeberg, 527 N.W.2d 676, 679 (S.D. 1995)). Additionally, "parents may not through misconduct or mistake prejudice their children's right to support."

"`No law can be changed or repealed by a subsequent act which is void because unconstitutional.'" In re Certification of Questions ( Knowles), 1996 SD 10, ¶ 88, 544 N.W.2d 183, 204 (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Peterson ex rel. Peterson v. Burns, 2001 SD 126, ¶ 37, 635 N.W.2d 556, 570) (quoting Frost v. Corp. Comm'n, 278 U.S. 515, 527, 49 S.Ct. 235, 240, 73 L.Ed. 483, 491 (1929)); Weegar v. Bakeberg, 527 N.W.2d 676, 678 (S.D. 1995). Therefore, the requirements provided by SDCL 62-4-34.1, requiring Homestake to file its claims against the fund within ninety days of their adjudication or approval by the Department still applied.

Similarly, when a statute is unconstitutional it is void and "is to be treated as though it never existed." Weegar v. Bakeburg, 527 N.W.2d 676, 678 (SD 1995). [¶ 11] Nevertheless, the State asserts that Quinn's admission that he had been fully informed of the guidelines is sufficient to establish specific intent to violate our theft by deception statutes.

As this amended form is declared unconstitutional, the 1991 version of SDCL 2-2-28 remains in full force and effect. In re Certification of Questions of Law, 1996 SD 10, ¶ 87, 544 N.W.2d 183, 204; Weegar v. Bakeberg, 527 N.W.2d 676, 678 (SD 1995). [¶ 19] MILLER, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, Justice, concur.

[¶ 40] It is important to note that we do not need to address the constitutional issue because this case can be resolved on other grounds. See, e.g., Weegar v. Bakeberg, 527 N.W.2d 676, 679 (S.D. 1995) ("[T]his case can be decided on the merits and there is no need to address the constitutional issue.") (Amundson, J., concurring specially); accord Sander v. Geib, Elston, Frost Professional Ass'n, 506 N.W.2d 107, 127 (S.D. 1993) ("[B]ecause we have decided this case on other than constitutional grounds, we are not warranted in addressing the constitutional questions raised[.]") (Miller, C.J.).

The effect of an invalid amendment on the prior statute was clearly answered in State v. Reed, 75 S.D. 300, 303, 63 N.W.2d 803, 804 (1954) wherein this Court stated, "[i]f such amendatory act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the law prior to its enactment is still in effect." The basis for this rationale was set forth in State v. Clark, 367 N.W.2d 168, 169 (N.D. 1985) which we cited with approval in Weegar v. Bakeberg, 527 N.W.2d 676, 678 (S.D. 1995). The Clark Court held: