South Dakota

Case law + guideline framework; factor structure: 7 categories.

Authority

S.D. Codified Laws §§ 25-4-45, 25-4A-11; Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 1999 S.D. 35, 591 N.W.2d 798

Source framework

Case law + guideline

Factor structure

7 categories

Operative language

consultative

Catch-all language

n/a

Presumptions in the original survey

Express anti-preference; § 25-4A-11 provides an initial twelve-month-primary-caregiver arrangement unless the parties agree otherwise and states that imposing standard guidelines creates no presumption as to the custody award at a hearing.

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

Irreconcilable differences requires both parties’ consent unless one party has not made a general appearance under § 25-4-17.2. It is not an unrestricted contested unilateral route.

Authority

SDCL 25-4-2 , 25-4-17.1, 25-4-17.2

Grounds without a misconduct showing

Irreconcilable differences requires both parties’ consent unless one party has not made a general appearance under § 25-4-17.2. It is not an unrestricted contested unilateral route.

Other grounds and proof conditions

Adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion, willful neglect, habitual intemperance, conviction of felony (6)

Separation

No general period of separation substitutes for consent under the irreconcilable-differences provision.

Timing

60 days from completed service, 25-4-34 ; court may continue up to 30 days if reconciliation possible, 25-4-17.2

Relief without dissolution

Yes, legal separation 25-4-17.2 and separate maintenance 25-4-40

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Parent-residence notice ordinarily requires forty-five days, subject to the existing-order/agreement condition and statutory exceptions. No general relocation burden allocation identified; § 25-4A-19 states the objection/hearing and best-interest directions.

Authority

SDCL 25-4A-17 to -19

Court test

general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)

Burden classification

no general relocation allocation identified

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

any move (no distance threshold)

Effect of silence

yes

What the court weighs

If an objection is filed, the court considers the 'traditional best interest of the child factors' for a proposed relocation that would substantially alter the existing parenting time arrangement (25-4A-19, sentence added 2020). Before 2020 the section set no standard at all. In Kolbach, the Supreme Court declined to consider proposed relocation-specific factors without appellate advocacy on both sides (2016 SD 30, n.4). The new family unit is one factor among others (Brosnan, 2013 SD 81 ¶ 28). The reasons for a notice-exempt move may still be weighed in a custody determination (Shelstad, 2019 S.D. 24 ¶¶ 33-34).

Who carries the burden

Unclear. The statute is silent. In Brosnan the circuit court asked whether the relocating parent had met her burden to show best interests. The Supreme Court reviewed for abuse of discretion. No statement of an allocation identified.

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes, where no existing custody order or enforceable agreement expressly governs relocation of the child's principal residence. A parent intending to change that parent’s principal residence gives reasonable written notice by certified mail or admission of service to the other legal parent, at least 45 days before the move or a shorter period if reasonable on the facts. Proof is filed with the court unless the court waives notice (25-4A-17). Contents (25-4A-18): new address and phone if known, purpose, why the move is in the child's best interest, proposed visitation plan. If notice is given in compliance with § 25-4A-17(3) or (4), the notice may satisfy the address requirement by stating the city and state of the new residence (§ 25-4A-18).

Which moves trigger the rule

A parent intends to change the parent's principal residence where no existing custody order or enforceable agreement expressly governs relocation of the child's principal residence. No mileage or state-line trigger in the text. No notice needed if the move brings the child closer to the noncustodial parent, is within the child's current school district, a protection order protects the child or custodial parent (unless the other parent has a later parenting-time order), or the nonrelocating parent was convicted in the past 12 months of a protection-order violation, criminal assault, child abuse or domestic violence against the child or custodial parent, unless the noncustodial parent has a valid parenting-time order established after the conviction (25-4A-17(1)-(4)). Section 25-4A-19 directs consideration of traditional best-interest factors when an objection is filed and the proposed move would substantially alter the existing parenting-time arrangement.

Objections and the effect of silence

At the nonrelocating parent's request made within 30 days of the notice, the court shall hold a hearing. If no request comes within 30 days, the relocation is presumed to be consented to (25-4A-19).

The modification threshold

Unclear. Relocation runs through 25-4A-17 to -19. Whether a proposed relocation alone can support modification of custody was not found.

Other qualifications

Notice is not required when the move brings the child closer to the other parent or stays within the child's current school district (25-4A-17(1)-(2)), and § 25-4A-19 directs consideration of traditional best-interest factors when an objection is filed and the proposed move would substantially alter the existing parenting-time arrangement.

Burden summary

No general allocation identified

Notice summary

45 days; exceptions apply

Trigger summary

Parent residence change; order/agreement and statutory exceptions apply

Compare parental relocation nationally