## Facts

- Travis L. Arneson (father) and Teresa E. Arneson (mother) married in 1998 and had one child, Grace (born 1998).
- Travis has cerebral palsy, uses a wheelchair, and receives lifetime monthly payments from a structured personal-injury settlement; he uses paid attendants and incurred disability-related expenses.
- During the divorce proceedings, the court initially ordered alternating weekly physical custody; Travis’s attendant and later an in-home caregiver helped care for Grace during Travis’s time.
- The court appointed a custody evaluator (social worker Judy Zimbelman), who questioned Travis’s ability to care for Grace without assistance, raised emergency-response concerns, and recommended primary physical custody with Teresa due to Grace’s young age, emotional ties, and need for stability and frequent contact.
- Teresa worked outside the home (including a period of overnight shifts) and earned substantially less than Travis.
- The circuit court granted joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Teresa, calculated child support by treating Travis’s structured settlement payments as income while excluding a portion for extraordinary disability expenses, and awarded Teresa attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court improperly relied on Travis’s disability or an impermissible tender-years preference in awarding Teresa primary physical custody.
2. Whether structured personal-injury settlement payments may be treated as “income” for child-support purposes under SDCL 25-7-6.3, and whether an offset for extraordinary disability expenses was appropriate.
3. Whether the attorney-fee award to Teresa was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full.
- The custody determination was upheld because the circuit court applied a best-interests analysis and did not treat disability or the child’s age as a categorical presumption.
- The child-support calculation was upheld because the structured settlement constituted a financial resource properly considered as income, and the circuit court reasonably accounted for extraordinary disability-related expenses by excluding a set amount.
- The attorney-fee award was upheld based on the parties’ disparate financial circumstances and the trial court’s discretionary authority in domestic-relations matters.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody determinations are governed by the child’s best interests, and trial courts have broad discretion when weighing caregiving capacity, stability, and continuity.
- A parent’s disability may be considered only to the extent it bears on the child’s best interests in an individualized assessment (including practical caregiving limitations and emergency-response ability), not through generalized assumptions or categorical preferences.
- Consideration of a young child’s need for stability and frequent contact with a parent is permissible when grounded in the evidence and does not constitute revival of a tender-years presumption.
- For child support, structured personal-injury settlement payments may be treated as income or a source of income under SDCL 25-7-6.3; courts may adjust the calculation to account for extraordinary, proven disability-related expenses.
- Attorney’s fees in domestic-relations cases may be awarded within the trial court’s discretion, including to address significant disparities in the parties’ ability to pay.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed primary physical custody to the mother, inclusion of the father’s structured settlement payments as child-support income with an offset for extraordinary disability expenses, and an attorney-fee award, holding that the trial court properly applied a child-centered best-interests analysis and acted within its discretion.


Arneson v. Arneson, 670 N.W.2d 904 (S.D. 2003)