25-5-29. Person other than parent permitted to seek custody of child--Parent's presumptive right to custody--Rebuttal.
Except for proceedings under chapter 26-7A, 26-8A, 26-8B, or 26-8C, the court may allow any person other than the parent of a child to intervene or petition a court of competent jurisdiction for custody or visitation of any child with whom he or she has served as a primary caretaker, has closely bonded as a parental figure, or has otherwise formed a significant and substantial relationship. It is presumed to be in the best interest of a child to be in the care, custody, and control of the child's parent, and the parent shall be afforded the constitutional protections as determined by the United States Supreme Court and the South Dakota Supreme Court. A parent's presumptive right to custody of his or her child may be rebutted by proof:
(1) That the parent has abandoned or persistently neglected the child;
(2) That the parent has forfeited or surrendered his or her parental rights over the child to any person other than the parent;
(3) That the parent has abdicated his or her parental rights and responsibilities; or
(4) That other extraordinary circumstances exist which, if custody is awarded to the parent, would result in serious detriment to the child.
Source: SL 2002, ch 126, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
In Re the Guardianship of S.M.N., 2010 SD 31 (S.D. 2010).
· cites it 12× “The circuit court concluded that Mother’s presumptive right to the custody of her children under SDCL 25-5-29 was rebutted by proof that she abdicated her parental rights and responsibilities, and that extraordinary circumstances existed, which, if custody were awarded to her,…”
Howlett v. Stellingwerf, 2018 SD 19 (S.D. 2018).
· cites it 20× “Father also argued that even if the court viewed the case as a custody proceeding, it should analyze the issue under the provisions of SDCL 25-5-29 and 25-5-30, which govern when a nonparent may be granted custody.”
Clough v. Nez, 2008 SD 125 (S.D. 2008).
· cites it 14× “The court concluded that “[pjursuant to SDCL 25-5-29 and 25-5-30, extraordinary circumstances exist [that] require the relationship between [Clough] and [C.”
Aguilar v. Aguilar, 2016 SD 20 (S.D. 2016).
· cites it 8× “According to SDCL 25-5-29, [a] parent’s presumptive right to custody of his or her child may be rebutted by proof: (1) That the parent has abandoned or persistently neglected the child; (2) That the parent has forfeited or surrendered his or her parental rights over the child…”
Feist Lemieux-Feist v. State, 2010 S.D. 104 (S.D. 2010).
· cites it 15× “The two statutes in question are SDCL 25-5-29 and 25-5-30. The circuit court found these statutes unconstitutional because they do not specifically require “a finding of parental unfitness prior to awarding custody to a non-parent.”
Veldheer v. Peterson & Mandel, 2012 S.D. 86 (S.D. 2012).
· cites it 18× “Whether the circuit court erred in allowing Grandparents to join/intervene in the parents’ custody dispute.”
Regalado v. Mathieson, 2004 SD 87 (S.D. 2004).
· cites it 13× “] Mother appeals from a trial court’s dismissal of an action initiated by *69 Grandmother pursuant to SDCL 25-5-29 et seq. seeking custody of Mother’s two children, T.”
Beach v. Coisman, 2012 S.D. 31 (S.D. 2012).
· cites it 16× “Ellen and Keith assert that the circuit court should have applied SDCL § 25-5-29, 2 a general nonparent visitation and custody statute.”
Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Moore, 2014 ME 59 (Me. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Code § 3041 (a) 39 (West 2007) (requiring the court, among other things, to “make a finding that granting custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child” before awarding custody to a nonparent); S.D. Codified Laws § 25-5-29 (4) (2013) (requiring proof that “other…”
McAllister v. McAllister, 2010 ND 40 (N.D. 2010).
· cites it 2× “119 (2003); S.D. Codified Laws § 25-5-29 (2002); Va.Code Ann.”
Guardianship of I.L.J.E., 2018 SD 81 (S.D. 2018).
· cites it 2× “2d at 221 ; SDCL 25-5-29. Other extraordinary circumstances include, among other things, evidence of parental forfeiture or surrender of parental rights to another person.”
In the Interest of D.M., 677 N.W.2d 578 (S.D. 2004).
· cites it 2× “1 SDCL 25-5-29. The law specifies a parent’s presumptive right to the custody of his or her child but allows that presumption to be rebutted by a non-relative intervenor.”
— S.D. Codified Laws § 25-5-29(2) — 2 cases
Veldheer v. Peterson & Mandel, 2012 S.D. 86 (S.D. 2012).
“Whether the circuit court erred in allowing Grandparents to join/intervene in the parents’ custody dispute.”
Guardianship of I.L.J.E., 2018 SD 81 (S.D. 2018).
“2d at 221 ; SDCL 25-5-29. Other extraordinary circumstances include, among other things, evidence of parental forfeiture or surrender of parental rights to another person.”
— S.D. Codified Laws § 25-5-29(4) — 7 cases
Aguilar v. Aguilar, 2016 SD 20 (S.D. 2016).
“According to SDCL 25-5-29, [a] parent’s presumptive right to custody of his or her child may be rebutted by proof: (1) That the parent has abandoned or persistently neglected the child; (2) That the parent has forfeited or surrendered his or her parental rights over the child…”
Clough v. Nez, 2008 SD 125 (S.D. 2008).
“The court concluded that “[pjursuant to SDCL 25-5-29 and 25-5-30, extraordinary circumstances exist [that] require the relationship between [Clough] and [C.”
Veldheer v. Peterson & Mandel, 2012 S.D. 86 (S.D. 2012).
“Whether the circuit court erred in allowing Grandparents to join/intervene in the parents’ custody dispute.”
Beach v. Coisman, 2012 S.D. 31 (S.D. 2012).
“Ellen and Keith assert that the circuit court should have applied SDCL § 25-5-29, 2 a general nonparent visitation and custody statute.”
Howlett v. Stellingwerf, 2018 SD 19 (S.D. 2018).
“Father also argued that even if the court viewed the case as a custody proceeding, it should analyze the issue under the provisions of SDCL 25-5-29 and 25-5-30, which govern when a nonparent may be granted custody.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.