Van Driel v. Van Driel
South Dakota Supreme Court
525 N.W.2d 37 (1994)
- Written by Robert Schefter, JD
Facts
James Van Driel (plaintiff) and Lori Ann Van Driel (defendant) had two children, who were ages eight and five when the couple divorced in January 1991 after 10 years of marriage. The couple entered into a custody settlement agreement, sharing joint legal custody and having an alternating-week schedule for physical custody. Shortly after the divorce was final, Lori exchanged permanent vows with her lesbian partner. In August 1991, James petitioned for full custody, alleging that Lori’s lesbian relationship was immoral and that the children would be ridiculed by their peers and would react negatively to Lori’s sexual orientation as they matured. The trial court found both James and Lori to be suitable parents. A clinical psychologist retained by both parties, however, conducted a thorough custody evaluation and recommended that the court award physical custody of both children to Lori. The record indicated that Lori and her partner were good parents who were discreet about the sexual portion of their relationship. There was no evidence that the children were ridiculed by classmates or reacted negatively to Lori’s sexual orientation. The children stated a preference to live with Lori. The trial court awarded primary physical custody of both children to Lori, with visitation rights to James, and James appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.