## Facts

- Father and Mother married in 1976 and raised four children; three were Father’s biological children, and later testing established Father was not the biological father of the youngest child, Nathan (born 1990).
- Father filed for divorce alleging extreme mental cruelty and an adulterous relationship between Mother and a neighbor.
- A temporary order placed the three older children with Father; Nathan stayed with Mother due to breastfeeding.
- After a full trial, the court awarded Mother custody with liberal visitation to Father.
- During Father’s first appeal, Mother admitted adultery during the marriage and admitted she had falsely denied it at trial; the matter was remanded for consideration of the new evidence, including paternity testing.
- On remand, after a second evidentiary trial and re-interviews of the children, the court again awarded custody to Mother.
- The trial court found the children were better adjusted and more outgoing while in Mother’s custody; two children expressed a preference to live with Mother.
- Evidence of harm to the children from Mother’s affair was limited (including one incident observed by the oldest child).
- Father worked roughly 60–65 hours per week, and his employer’s practices could require relocation every two to three years, raising concerns about daily availability and residential stability if Father had custody.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding custody to Mother despite her adultery and her false testimony at the first trial.
2. Whether Mother’s adultery and perjury required a custody award to Father as a matter of law or compelled a different best-interests outcome.
3. Whether the trial court properly applied the best-interests standard, including the children’s adjustment, preferences, stability, and the practical effects of each parent’s circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the post-remand decree awarding custody to Mother and granting Father liberal visitation.
- The court held the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in concluding custody with Mother served the children’s best interests.
- Mother’s adultery and admitted false testimony were relevant but did not require a custody change absent a showing of meaningful adverse effect on the children.
- The court accepted the trial court’s findings that the children were doing well in Mother’s care and that Father’s work schedule and likely moves supported concerns about stability and childcare needs.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody determinations turn on the best interests and welfare of the children.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in custody decisions; appellate review is deferential and will reverse only for a clear abuse of discretion.
- Parental misconduct, including adultery, may be considered but is not dispositive; the controlling inquiry is the conduct’s demonstrated effect on the children.
- A child’s stated preference is a relevant factor when the child is sufficiently mature, but it is not controlling.
- Stability, continuity of care, and practical caregiving capacity (including work demands and likely relocations) are proper best-interests considerations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed custody to Mother because the trial court reasonably found the children’s welfare was served by continuing their stable placement with her, and Mother’s adultery and prior false testimony—though serious—did not warrant reversal without proof of substantial harm to the children.


Hanhart v. Hanhart, 501 N.W.2d 776 (S.D. 1993)