Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberggreen2 sentences2022Id. [¶30.] Though the Fuerstenberg factors have become an accepted means of determining child custody disputes, a court is not, strictly speaking, required to -9- #29721 examine them in its best interests determination. 2022Id. [¶30.] Though the Fuerstenberg factors have become an accepted means of determining child custody disputes, a court is not, strictly speaking, required to -9- #29721 examine them in its best interests determination. | 4 | 8 |
Schieffer v. Schieffergreen2 sentences2015“The [circuit] court may, but is not required to, consider the following Fuerstenberg factors in determining the best interests and welfare of the [children]: parental fitness, stability, primary caretaker, [children’s] preference, harmful parental misconduct, separating siblings, and substantial change of circumstances.” Roth, 2013 S.D. 48 , ¶ 13, 834 N.W.2d at 340 (quoting Schieffer, 2013 S.D. 11, ¶ 17 , 826 N.W.2d at 634 ). 2015“The [circuit] court may, but is not required to, consider the following Fuerstenberg factors in determining the best interests and welfare of the [children]: parental fitness, stability, primary caretaker, [children’s] preference, harmful parental misconduct, separating siblings, and substantial change of circumstances.” Roth, 2013 S.D. 48 , ¶ 13, 834 N.W.2d at 340 (quoting Schieffer, 2013 S.D. 11, ¶ 17 , 826 N.W.2d at 634 ). | 2 | 3 |
Kreps v. Krepsgreen2 sentences2023Required or not, the Fuerstenberg factors are an “eminently practical . . . means for a court to achieve form and structure in its analysis.” Id. ¶ 31. [¶20.] Cody develops the three appellate arguments identified above as follows: First, he argues that the circuit court erred “in waiving off the criminal misdeed by [Sarah], and declaring the [SDCL 25-4-45.5] presumption to have been rebutted, upon a ‘totality of the circumstances.’’’ Second, he argues the court “failed to honor the holding of Kreps v. Kreps, 2010 S.D. 12 , 778 N.W.2d 835 , wherein this Court rejected the notion that the prima 2023Required or not, the Fuerstenberg factors are an “eminently practical . . . means for a court to achieve form and structure in its analysis.” Id. ¶ 31. [¶20.] Cody develops the three appellate arguments identified above as follows: First, he argues that the circuit court erred “in waiving off the criminal misdeed by [Sarah], and declaring the [SDCL 25-4-45.5] presumption to have been rebutted, upon a ‘totality of the circumstances.’’’ Second, he argues the court “failed to honor the holding of Kreps v. Kreps, 2010 S.D. 12 , 778 N.W.2d 835 , wherein this Court rejected the notion that the prima | 1 | 3 |
McCarty v. McCartygreen2 sentences2022See McCarty v. McCarty, 2015 S.D. 59, ¶ 12 , 867 N.W.2d 355, 359 (“The [circuit] court may, but is not required to, consider the . . . 2022See McCarty v. McCarty, 2015 S.D. 59, ¶ 12 , 867 N.W.2d 355, 359 (“The [circuit] court may, but is not required to, consider the . . . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Uhinggreen2 sentences2018See State v. Uhing , 2016 S.D. 93 , ¶ 13, 888 N.W.2d 550 , 555. 2018See State v. Uhing , 2016 S.D. 93 , ¶ 13, 888 N.W.2d 550 , 555. | 1 | 1 |
Goeden v. Daumgreen2 sentences2015Pietrzak, 2009 S.D. 1 , ¶ 37, 759 N.W.2d at 743 . “ ‘An abuse of discretion can simply be an error of law or ... discretion exercised to an unjustified purpose, against reason and evidence.’ ” Goeden v. Daum, 2003 S.D. 91 , ¶ 7, 668 N.W.2d 108, 111 (quoting Sjomeling v. Stuber, 2000 S.D. 103 , ¶ 11, 615 N.W.2d 613, 616 .) [¶ 17.] Instead of making its own written findings on the Fuerstenberg factors, the court adopted Dr. Moss’s findings and recommendations. 2015Pietrzak, 2009 S.D. 1 , ¶ 37, 759 N.W.2d at 743 . “ ‘An abuse of discretion can simply be an error of law or ... discretion exercised to an unjustified purpose, against reason and evidence.’ ” Goeden v. Daum, 2003 S.D. 91 , ¶ 7, 668 N.W.2d 108, 111 (quoting Sjomeling v. Stuber, 2000 S.D. 103 , ¶ 11, 615 N.W.2d 613, 616 .) [¶ 17.] Instead of making its own written findings on the Fuerstenberg factors, the court adopted Dr. Moss’s findings and recommendations. | 1 | 1 |
Keegan v. Gudahlgreen1 sentence2015See Keegan, 525 N.W.2d at 699 (saying “factors for the court to consider include, but are not limited to ...” (emphasis added)); Kreps v. Kreps, 2010 S.D. 12 , ¶ 26, 778 N.W.2d 835, 843 (regarding Fuerstenberg factors, “The trial court may, but is not required to, consider the following factors in determining the best interests and welfare of the child.... ” (emphasis added) (quoting Pietrzak v. Schroeder, 2009 S.D. 1 , ¶ 41, 759 N.W.2d 734, 744 )); In the Interest of A.D.R., 499 N.W.2d 906, 909 (S.D.1993) (regarding the transfer of a juvenile to adult court). | 1 | 1 |
In Interest of ADRgreen1 sentence2015See Keegan, 525 N.W.2d at 699 (saying “factors for the court to consider include, but are not limited to ...” (emphasis added)); Kreps v. Kreps, 2010 S.D. 12 , ¶ 26, 778 N.W.2d 835, 843 (regarding Fuerstenberg factors, “The trial court may, but is not required to, consider the following factors in determining the best interests and welfare of the child.... ” (emphasis added) (quoting Pietrzak v. Schroeder, 2009 S.D. 1 , ¶ 41, 759 N.W.2d 734, 744 )); In the Interest of A.D.R., 499 N.W.2d 906, 909 (S.D.1993) (regarding the transfer of a juvenile to adult court). | 1 | 1 |
Hathaway v. Bergheimgreen2 sentences2013“Separating siblings is ‘one of several factors courts consider in determining the best interests of the children.’ ” Id. (quoting Hathaway v. Bergheim, 2002 S.D. 78 , ¶ 32, 648 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Gilbertson, C.J., dissenting)). [¶ 16.] The record demonstrates that in making its best interests determination, the trial court made detailed oral findings of fact and conclusions of law analyzing the applicable Fuerstenberg factors. 2013“Separating siblings is ‘one of several factors courts consider in determining the best interests of the children.’ ” Id. (quoting Hathaway v. Bergheim, 2002 S.D. 78 , ¶ 32, 648 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Gilbertson, C.J., dissenting)). [¶ 16.] The record demonstrates that in making its best interests determination, the trial court made detailed oral findings of fact and conclusions of law analyzing the applicable Fuerstenberg factors. | 1 | 1 |
Beaulieu v. Birdsbillgreen2 sentences2013See id. (quoting Beaulieu, 2012 S.D. 45, ¶ 10 , 815 N.W.2d at 572 ). 2013See id. (quoting Beaulieu, 2012 S.D. 45, ¶ 10 , 815 N.W.2d at 572 ). | 1 | 1 |
Hogen v. Pifergreen2 sentences2009Because the circuit court’s underlying findings were made on the express rejection of Joleen’s credibility regarding this principal issue, we should continue to follow our often stated “ ‘recognition that trial courts are in a better position to make these difficult choices because the parents are present in the courtroom and the judge is better able to assess [the situation] firsthand.’ ” Hogen v. Pifer, 2008 SD 96, ¶ 9 , 757 N.W.2d 160, 168 (quoting Maxner v. Maxner, 2007 SD 30, ¶ 11 , 730 N.W.2d 619, 622 ). 2009Because the circuit court’s underlying findings were made on the express rejection of Joleen’s credibility regarding this principal issue, we should continue to follow our often stated “ ‘recognition that trial courts are in a better position to make these difficult choices because the parents are present in the courtroom and the judge is better able to assess [the situation] firsthand.’ ” Hogen v. Pifer, 2008 SD 96, ¶ 9 , 757 N.W.2d 160, 168 (quoting Maxner v. Maxner, 2007 SD 30, ¶ 11 , 730 N.W.2d 619, 622 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Flint v. Flint
neutral
2 sentences2025But “[r]equired or not, the Fuerstenberg factors are an ‘eminently practical . . . means for a court to achieve form and structure in its analysis.’” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Flint, 2022 S.D. 27, ¶ 31 , 974 N.W.2d at 703). [¶42.] Lisa’s argument that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting Brian unsupervised visitation is a narrow one in the sense it is premised upon two discrete factual findings she believes to be clearly erroneous. 2025But “[r]equired or not, the Fuerstenberg factors are an ‘eminently practical . . . means for a court to achieve form and structure in its analysis.’” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Flint, 2022 S.D. 27, ¶ 31 , 974 N.W.2d at 703). [¶42.] Lisa’s argument that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting Brian unsupervised visitation is a narrow one in the sense it is premised upon two discrete factual findings she believes to be clearly erroneous. | 2 | 2023–2025 |
Pietrzak v. Schroeder
green
2 sentences2015Pietrzak, 2009 S.D. 1 , ¶ 37, 759 N.W.2d at 743 . “ ‘An abuse of discretion can simply be an error of law or ... discretion exercised to an unjustified purpose, against reason and evidence.’ ” Goeden v. Daum, 2003 S.D. 91 , ¶ 7, 668 N.W.2d 108, 111 (quoting Sjomeling v. Stuber, 2000 S.D. 103 , ¶ 11, 615 N.W.2d 613, 616 .) [¶ 17.] Instead of making its own written findings on the Fuerstenberg factors, the court adopted Dr. Moss’s findings and recommendations. 2015Pietrzak, 2009 S.D. 1 , ¶ 37, 759 N.W.2d at 743 . “ ‘An abuse of discretion can simply be an error of law or ... discretion exercised to an unjustified purpose, against reason and evidence.’ ” Goeden v. Daum, 2003 S.D. 91 , ¶ 7, 668 N.W.2d 108, 111 (quoting Sjomeling v. Stuber, 2000 S.D. 103 , ¶ 11, 615 N.W.2d 613, 616 .) [¶ 17.] Instead of making its own written findings on the Fuerstenberg factors, the court adopted Dr. Moss’s findings and recommendations. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Shelstad v. Shelstad
neutral
2 sentences2023Required or not, the Fuerstenberg factors are an “eminently practical . . . means for a court to achieve form and structure in its analysis.” Id. ¶ 31. [¶20.] Cody develops the three appellate arguments identified above as follows: First, he argues that the circuit court erred “in waiving off the criminal misdeed by [Sarah], and declaring the [SDCL 25-4-45.5] presumption to have been rebutted, upon a ‘totality of the circumstances.’’’ Second, he argues the court “failed to honor the holding of Kreps v. Kreps, 2010 S.D. 12 , 778 N.W.2d 835 , wherein this Court rejected the notion that the prima 2023Required or not, the Fuerstenberg factors are an “eminently practical . . . means for a court to achieve form and structure in its analysis.” Id. ¶ 31. [¶20.] Cody develops the three appellate arguments identified above as follows: First, he argues that the circuit court erred “in waiving off the criminal misdeed by [Sarah], and declaring the [SDCL 25-4-45.5] presumption to have been rebutted, upon a ‘totality of the circumstances.’’’ Second, he argues the court “failed to honor the holding of Kreps v. Kreps, 2010 S.D. 12 , 778 N.W.2d 835 , wherein this Court rejected the notion that the prima | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Shelstad v. Shelstad
neutral
2 sentences2023Required or not, the Fuerstenberg factors are an “eminently practical . . . means for a court to achieve form and structure in its analysis.” Id. ¶ 31. [¶20.] Cody develops the three appellate arguments identified above as follows: First, he argues that the circuit court erred “in waiving off the criminal misdeed by [Sarah], and declaring the [SDCL 25-4-45.5] presumption to have been rebutted, upon a ‘totality of the circumstances.’’’ Second, he argues the court “failed to honor the holding of Kreps v. Kreps, 2010 S.D. 12 , 778 N.W.2d 835 , wherein this Court rejected the notion that the prima 2023Required or not, the Fuerstenberg factors are an “eminently practical . . . means for a court to achieve form and structure in its analysis.” Id. ¶ 31. [¶20.] Cody develops the three appellate arguments identified above as follows: First, he argues that the circuit court erred “in waiving off the criminal misdeed by [Sarah], and declaring the [SDCL 25-4-45.5] presumption to have been rebutted, upon a ‘totality of the circumstances.’’’ Second, he argues the court “failed to honor the holding of Kreps v. Kreps, 2010 S.D. 12 , 778 N.W.2d 835 , wherein this Court rejected the notion that the prima | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Sjomeling v. Stuber
green
2 sentences2015Pietrzak, 2009 S.D. 1 , ¶ 37, 759 N.W.2d at 743 . “ ‘An abuse of discretion can simply be an error of law or ... discretion exercised to an unjustified purpose, against reason and evidence.’ ” Goeden v. Daum, 2003 S.D. 91 , ¶ 7, 668 N.W.2d 108, 111 (quoting Sjomeling v. Stuber, 2000 S.D. 103 , ¶ 11, 615 N.W.2d 613, 616 .) [¶ 17.] Instead of making its own written findings on the Fuerstenberg factors, the court adopted Dr. Moss’s findings and recommendations. 2015Pietrzak, 2009 S.D. 1 , ¶ 37, 759 N.W.2d at 743 . “ ‘An abuse of discretion can simply be an error of law or ... discretion exercised to an unjustified purpose, against reason and evidence.’ ” Goeden v. Daum, 2003 S.D. 91 , ¶ 7, 668 N.W.2d 108, 111 (quoting Sjomeling v. Stuber, 2000 S.D. 103 , ¶ 11, 615 N.W.2d 613, 616 .) [¶ 17.] Instead of making its own written findings on the Fuerstenberg factors, the court adopted Dr. Moss’s findings and recommendations. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Price v. Price
green
2 sentences2010Primary Physical Care [¶ 28.] Under her first argument, Kelly offers the proposition that the parent who served as the primary caretaker should be the primary factor in determining child custody disputes because it is in the first order of priority in the listing under the Fuerstenberg factors. 1 Kelly relies on the fact that many jurisdictions give preference to the primary caretaker in child custody determinations as noted by this Court in Price v. Price, 2000 SD 64, ¶ 32 , 611 N.W.2d 425, 433 . [¶ 29.] We have acknowledged that other jurisdictions place greater emphasis on this factor than 2010Primary Physical Care [¶ 28.] Under her first argument, Kelly offers the proposition that the parent who served as the primary caretaker should be the primary factor in determining child custody disputes because it is in the first order of priority in the listing under the Fuerstenberg factors. 1 Kelly relies on the fact that many jurisdictions give preference to the primary caretaker in child custody determinations as noted by this Court in Price v. Price, 2000 SD 64, ¶ 32 , 611 N.W.2d 425, 433 . [¶ 29.] We have acknowledged that other jurisdictions place greater emphasis on this factor than | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Maxner v. Maxner
green
2 sentences2009Because the circuit court’s underlying findings were made on the express rejection of Joleen’s credibility regarding this principal issue, we should continue to follow our often stated “ ‘recognition that trial courts are in a better position to make these difficult choices because the parents are present in the courtroom and the judge is better able to assess [the situation] firsthand.’ ” Hogen v. Pifer, 2008 SD 96, ¶ 9 , 757 N.W.2d 160, 168 (quoting Maxner v. Maxner, 2007 SD 30, ¶ 11 , 730 N.W.2d 619, 622 ). 2009Because the circuit court’s underlying findings were made on the express rejection of Joleen’s credibility regarding this principal issue, we should continue to follow our often stated “ ‘recognition that trial courts are in a better position to make these difficult choices because the parents are present in the courtroom and the judge is better able to assess [the situation] firsthand.’ ” Hogen v. Pifer, 2008 SD 96, ¶ 9 , 757 N.W.2d 160, 168 (quoting Maxner v. Maxner, 2007 SD 30, ¶ 11 , 730 N.W.2d 619, 622 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.