## Facts

- Chrisandra K. Schmidt (mother) and Richard L. Schmidt (father) divorced in 1984 and had three sons: David, Randy, and Michael.
- The 1984 divorce decree (based on a stipulation) awarded mother custody of all three children and ordered father to pay $375 per month in child support.
- The $375 support amount was based on South Dakota’s statutory child-support guidelines using father’s monthly income of about $1,250; mother’s monthly income was about $1,582.
- After the divorce, father farmed near Flandreau, South Dakota; mother lived in Brookings, South Dakota and worked for 3M.
- In 1988, father moved to modify the decree, requesting custody of the oldest child (David, age 14), summer residency for all three boys with him, and an adjustment to child support.
- Father presented evidence that David preferred living on the farm and that, while in mother’s home, David had failing grades, numerous absences, and a three-day school suspension, and was involved in a minor law-enforcement incident that father said mother did not disclose to him.
- Father also presented evidence that the Flandreau school system had a program comparable to what David previously received and that a neighbor (a substitute teacher) was willing to tutor David.
- Mother raised safety concerns about David operating farm machinery and driving an unlicensed, uninsured vehicle.
- The trial court modified custody by awarding father custody of David while leaving Randy and Michael in mother’s custody.
- The trial court also modified support by ordering father to pay $250 per month during the school year for the two younger children and $125 per month during the summer months when all three children stayed with father.
- In setting the $250 figure, the trial court effectively “cancelled out” father’s custody of one child against mother’s custody of one child and calculated support as if only one child were involved.
- Mother appealed the custody modification; father appealed the child-support calculation as inconsistent with the statutory guidelines.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred or abused its discretion in modifying custody to award father custody of the oldest child.
2. Whether the trial court erred in calculating child support by offsetting each parent’s custodial child and applying the guidelines as though only one child were involved.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the custody modification transferring custody of David to father.
- The Court reversed the modified child-support award and remanded for recalculation under the statutory child-support guidelines.

## Legal Principles

- A custody modification requires a substantial change in circumstances and a showing that the change serves the child’s best interests.
- Appellate review of custody findings is highly deferential; the trial court’s decision will stand unless clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.
- A mature child’s preference is a factor in the best-interests analysis but is not controlling.
- Statutory child-support guidelines create a presumptively correct support amount tied to the obligor’s income and the number of children for whom support is owed.
- A court may depart from the guideline amount only when the record and findings justify treating the presumptive amount as unjust or inappropriate.
- In a split-custody arrangement, a court may not set support by informally offsetting one child against another and then using the guideline table for a smaller number of children; the guidelines must be applied based on the parties’ incomes and the actual custody arrangement.

## Conclusion

The South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the transfer of custody of the oldest child to the father because the trial court’s best-interests determination was supported by evidence such as the child’s preference and school-related concerns, but it reversed and remanded the child-support award because the trial court’s “cancellation” method did not properly apply South Dakota’s presumptive child-support guidelines or supply a valid basis for the resulting amount.


Schmidt v. Schmidt, 444 N.W.2d 367 (1989)