Arneson v. Arneson
2003 SD 125, 2003 S.D. LEXIS 155, 670 N.W.2d 904 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a child custody determination, a court may consider a parent's physical disability and its resulting limitations as one factor among many in a best-interests-of-the-child analysis, provided the court's decision is based on the parent's actual capabilities and not on stereotypes or presumptions of unfitness. Additionally, periodic payments from a personal injury structured settlement constitute income for the purpose of calculating child support.
Facts:
- Travis Arneson was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as an infant due to a physician's negligence and receives monthly lifetime payments from a resulting medical malpractice settlement.
- Travis uses a wheelchair and a personal attendant but is independent, employed as a counselor, and serves as an advocate for people with disabilities.
- Travis and Teresa Arneson married and had a child, Grace. During the marriage, Teresa sometimes worked a night shift, leaving Grace at home alone with Travis.
- After the couple separated, Travis began living with Edith Krueger, who operated a daycare in their home.
- The parties agreed to a custody evaluation by an expert, Judy Zimbelman, who scored Travis higher on a parenting skills survey but expressed concern about his ability to respond in an emergency due to his physical limitations.
- Zimbelman's report concluded that due to Grace's young age and emotional attachment to her mother, Teresa should be the primary custodian to provide stability and daily contact.
Procedural Posture:
- Travis Arneson filed a lawsuit for divorce against Teresa Arneson in a South Dakota circuit court, which is the state's trial court.
- During the proceedings, the court issued an interim order for the parents to share custody of their child on alternating weeks.
- The parties stipulated to the appointment of a custody evaluator, who submitted a report and testified at the trial.
- After the trial, the circuit court awarded the parents joint legal custody but designated Teresa as the primary physical custodian.
- The trial court ordered Travis to pay child support, basing the calculation on his structured personal injury settlement, and awarded attorney fees to Teresa.
- Travis Arneson (appellant) appealed the circuit court's decision to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court impermissibly discriminate against a parent based on a physical disability when it considers the parent's physical limitations, among other factors, in determining the best interests of the child for custody purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Konenkamp, Justice
No. A trial court does not impermissibly discriminate when it considers a parent's physical disability as one of many factors in a best-interests-of-the-child analysis, as long as the decision is not based on stereotypes. The court found that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not apply to parental custody litigation, as it is not a 'service, program, or activity' under the statute. While acknowledging that a disability is not a per se bar to custody, the court adopted the reasoning from Carney v. Carney, stating that a parent's health is a valid, though minor, factor. The trial court here did not abuse its discretion because it did not focus solely on Travis's disability; rather, it properly centered its decision on the relevant state law factors, including parental fitness, stability, and the primary caretaker role. The court reasonably relied on the expert's report regarding the child's emotional needs and attachment to her mother. The court also affirmed the inclusion of Travis's structured settlement as income for child support, finding it qualifies as 'periodic payments from... insurance contracts' under state law, and that even if it did not, it would be considered an 'asset' available to meet the child's needs.
Concurring - Sabers, Justice
This opinion concurs with the majority on most issues and concurs in the result on the child support issue. It emphasizes that the father failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in determining his structured settlement was income for child support purposes. The opinion reaffirms that the relevant state statute was intended to be inclusive and encompass unlisted sources of income.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a key framework for how state courts should handle child custody disputes involving a parent with a physical disability. It clarifies that while formal anti-discrimination laws like the ADA may not apply, their principles against stereotype-based decision-making are paramount. The ruling allows courts to realistically assess a parent's physical limitations but forbids them from presuming unfitness, thereby balancing the parent's rights with the child's best interests. Furthermore, by classifying personal injury structured settlement payments as income for child support, the case sets a significant precedent ensuring that a child has access to all of a parent's financial resources, regardless of their source or tax status.
