## Facts

- Kevin Mark Jones (plaintiff/appellee) and Dawn R. Jones (defendant/appellant) married in 1989 in Britton, South Dakota. Kevin was about 30 at trial and an enrolled member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota Nation; Dawn was Caucasian.   
- The parties had three minor children during the marriage, one of whom Kevin adopted.   
- The marriage was troubled by Kevin’s past alcoholism (he had been sober since 1992), Dawn’s depression, financial problems, and communication difficulties.   
- Kevin worked on his family’s farm and was active in his tribe and extended family network; Dawn was primarily a homemaker but was pursuing a nursing program at the time of the divorce.   
- The trial court granted a divorce, awarded the parties joint legal custody, but gave Kevin primary physical custody of the children, emphasizing the stability of Kevin’s home, his sobriety, and the support available from his family.   
- In its custody analysis, the trial court stated that custody determinations must be racially neutral but also considered Kevin’s willingness and ability to expose the children to their Native American heritage.   
- The court awarded Dawn rehabilitative alimony limited largely to tuition so she could complete her nursing education, taking into account the parties’ strained finances.   
- Dawn appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, arguing (1) that the custody award improperly considered race in violation of equal-protection principles and (2) that the court abused its discretion in both awarding Kevin primary physical custody and limiting her rehabilitative alimony.   

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion or violate equal-protection guarantees by awarding primary physical custody to the Native American father based, in part, on the children’s exposure to their Native American heritage?   
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in determining the amount and scope of rehabilitative alimony awarded to the mother?   

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s award of primary physical custody to Kevin; it held that there was no abuse of discretion and no unconstitutional reliance on race.   
- The court held that the trial court’s consideration of the children’s Native American heritage occurred within a broader, racially neutral “best interests of the child” analysis and did not amount to an impermissible racial classification under equal-protection principles. turn1search2turn1search8  
- The court affirmed the rehabilitative alimony award to Dawn, concluding that the trial court considered the appropriate factors, including her educational needs and Kevin’s financial situation, and therefore did not abuse its discretion in limiting alimony primarily to tuition support. urn1search6  

## Legal Principles

- In child-custody determinations, the governing standard is the best interests of the child; trial courts have broad discretion so long as their decisions are supported by the evidence and are not clearly against reason and evidence.   
- Equal-protection principles prohibit custody decisions from being based on a parent’s race or racial classifications; however, a court may acknowledge and neutrally consider a child’s ethnic or cultural heritage as one factor among many in evaluating best interests, so long as race is not used as a determinative or discriminatory basis for custody.   
- Appellate courts will not disturb a custody award absent an abuse of discretion, which occurs only when the trial court’s decision is not justified by, and is clearly against, the weight of the evidence or rests on an improper legal standard.   
- Rehabilitative alimony is designed to enable a disadvantaged spouse to acquire education or training to become self-supporting; the amount and duration are committed to the trial court’s discretion, guided by factors such as the parties’ financial conditions, length of the marriage, earning capacities, and the supported spouse’s educational needs.   

## Conclusion

- The South Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding Kevin primary physical custody based on a holistic, racially neutral best-interests analysis that permissibly recognized the children’s Native American heritage.  
- The court likewise upheld the rehabilitative alimony award to Dawn, finding that the trial court fairly balanced Dawn’s need for educational support with Kevin’s limited financial capacity and thus committed no abuse of discretion.


Jones v. Jones, 542 N.W.2d 119 (S.D. 1996)