Arneson v. Arneson - 2003 S.D. 125, 670 N.W.2d 904

Rule:

In deciding custody disputes between parents, a court shall be guided by consideration of what appears to be for the best interests of the child in respect to the child's temporal and mental and moral welfare. S.D. Codified Laws § 25-4-45. On appeal, an appellate court reviews a trial judge's decision for error in incorrectly choosing, interpreting, or applying the law; for clear mistakes in fact findings; and for undue emphasis on matters not materially related to the child's welfare. The appellate court expects that any decision will be balanced and methodical. In considering the relevant evidence, courts should be cognizant of several guiding principles. These include parental fitness, stability, primary caretaker, child's preference, harmful parental misconduct, and separation of siblings. A court is not bound to make a specific finding in each category; indeed, certain elements may not apply in some cases, and, in others, there may be additional relevant considerations. In the end, the brightest beacon remains the best interests of the child.

Facts:

Travis and Teresa Arneson married on March 28, 1998. Their only child, Grace Marie Ann Arneson, was born on September 24, 1998. When Travis was six months old, he was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. At birth, he suffered a lack of oxygen caused by a physician’s negligence. From the resulting medical malpractice settlement, Travis was receiving monthly personal injury payments for life. Travis was using a wheel chair and a personal attendant, but he did not suffer from any disability of intellect. In April 2001, Travis sued Teresa for divorce. While the action was pending, the circuit court ordered that they share custody of the child on alternating weeks. The trial court awarded joint legal custody to the parents, naming Teresa as the primary physical custodian. For computing the amount of monthly child support, the court excluded $ 16,000 of Travis's annual structured settlement receipts and calculated child support as if Travis had a yearly income of $ 72,000. Travis was ordered to pay monthly child support of $ 938. On appeal, Travis argued that the trial court improperly focused on his disability in awarding custody. He also challenged the child support awarded.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in awarding primary custody to the mother, and in ordering the father to pay monthly child support of $938?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

In affirming, the court determined that the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12111 et seq., did not apply to custody proceedings. However, physical disability was not a per se impediment to custody. The trial court considered the appropriate factors regarding the father's disability in awarding custody. The evidence showed that the mother was more willing to share custody of the child than the father. In addition, the father had misrepresented his financial condition. The trial court properly ordered child support based on the father's structured settlement. It was includable in the calculation of income under either S.D. Codified Laws § 25-7-6.3(3) or S.D. Codified Laws § 25-7-6.5. Further, the trial court properly excluded a portion of the settlement for the father's extraordinary expenses. Finally, the mother was entitled to attorney's fees based on the relative income of the parties.