## Facts

- Virginia Getman Donahue (mother) and Richard Getman (father) divorced in 1982, and the father was awarded physical custody of their three children.
- Both parties remarried; the father’s new spouse had children from a prior marriage.
- In 1986, the trial court modified custody and awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody of the three children.
- At that time, the trial court denied the mother’s request for child support, finding the father did not have the means or ability to pay.
- Shortly thereafter, the mother petitioned for child support under South Dakota’s statutory child-support guidelines, SDCL 25-7-7, based on the father’s monthly income of $1,405.33 from workers’ compensation and Social Security disability benefits.
- Applying the guidelines to that income, the presumptive support range was approximately $539 to $578 per month.
- The trial court found the father totally disabled due to a severe degenerative spinal condition and related complications, including multiple surgeries, chronic pain, occasional blackouts, and arm atrophy.
- The trial court also found the father’s current spouse could not work because she stayed home as his full-time caretaker.
- The father asserted significant expenses, including anticipated medical bills connected to the medical conditions of his stepchildren (his spouse’s children) that would require surgery.
- Despite the guideline range, the trial court ordered the father to pay only $120 per month in child support, relying on the father’s disability and expenses and the needs of the father’s new household.
- The mother appealed, arguing the downward deviation was an abuse of discretion and that the court failed to make adequate findings justifying the deviation.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting child support far below the SDCL 25-7-7 guideline amount based on the father’s disability and the expenses and needs of his new household, including stepchildren.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the order requiring only $120 per month in child support.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by departing so substantially from the statutory guideline amount without a sufficient basis consistent with the governing guidelines framework and the parent’s primary obligation to support his own children.
- The case was remanded for a redetermination of child support consistent with SDCL 25-7-7 and the Supreme Court’s opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Child-support determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal is warranted when the decision is not supported by the law or the record.
- SDCL 25-7-7 guideline amounts are presumptively correct and serve as the starting point for setting support.
- Deviations from the guideline amount must be justified by findings and reasoning that fit within the statutory scheme; a large deviation requires a strong, clearly stated justification.
- A parent’s duty to support his or her own minor children is paramount; other financial obligations are secondary.
- Expenses and obligations arising from remarriage, including responsibilities toward a new spouse’s children, generally cannot be used to substantially reduce support owed to the parent’s own children.
- Disability benefits and workers’ compensation benefits constitute income for guideline purposes; having a stable benefits-based income does not, by itself, justify a drastic reduction from the guideline level.

## Conclusion

The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed a child-support order that reduced the father’s obligation from the guideline range of roughly $539–$578 to $120 per month, holding that the trial court’s reliance on the father’s disability and the expenses of his new household (including stepchildren) did not legally justify such a large departure from SDCL 25-7-7, and remanded for recalculation consistent with the guidelines and the parent’s primary duty to support his own children.


Donahue v. Getman, 432 N.W.2d 281 (1988)