Background
P.R.M. was removed after repeated incidents in which he was found outside unsupervised. The State later petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights. The circuit court found that the parents had not addressed substance-use, domestic-violence, and mental-health concerns and that termination was in the child’s best interests.
Before the termination hearing, Father’s appointed lawyer withdrew after receiving threatening messages. The court appointed substitute counsel and continued the hearing two weeks, while warning Father that if he damaged that attorney-client relationship, he would have to represent himself. Substitute counsel then moved to withdraw after Father missed meetings, threatened a physical fight, and displayed a large pocketknife in counsel’s office.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the termination order. It held that a parent’s due-process protections and statutory right to appointed counsel in an abuse-and-neglect proceeding may be waived by conduct.
Father received an explicit warning that continued misconduct toward substitute counsel would leave him self-represented. His subsequent aggressive conduct supported a finding that he waived his rights to counsel by conduct. The circuit court therefore did not violate due process or SDCL 26-7A-31 by declining to appoint a third attorney. Because waiver supported the result, the Court did not decide whether Father’s conduct independently forfeited counsel through extreme misconduct.
Key Takeaways
- An indigent parent’s statutory right to counsel in South Dakota abuse-and-neglect proceedings can be waived by conduct.
- A clear warning about the consequence of continued misconduct is central to waiver by conduct.
- Threats and aggressive behavior toward successive appointed attorneys may justify requiring a parent to proceed without newly appointed counsel.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes that the right to counsel in South Dakota parental-termination proceedings is not immune from waiver by a parent’s conduct. Courts may rely on a parent’s post-warning misconduct toward counsel when deciding whether another appointment is required.