The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
- Protection Order
Unsupported by Findings Reversed
Summary
follows:
BATCHELDER
v. BATCHELDER, 2021 S.D. 60: The trial court entered both a temporary
protection order and a permanent protection order against former husband. The trial court’s order was supported only by
checking “a box on the preprinted protection order form indicating it had
found the existence of domestic abuse” without issuing “any oral or written
findings.” The SD Supreme Court
reversed, recognizing that the trial court was clearly attempting to “to use
the permanent protection order remedy to stabilize the high-conflict
relationship between the parties,” but it was doing so without regard to whether the
wife actually needed protection. The Court stated in ¶25:
While we can appreciate the
court’s weariness with the parties’ quarreling and its stated goal of
addressing [the minor child’s] best interests, the court cannot seek to further
this end under a utilitarian view that overlooks the basic principles
associated with the protection order remedy.
The
Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
This
decision may be accessed at
