People of the State of South Dakota, ex rel. South Dakota Department of Social Services, in the Interests of A.D., Minor Child, and Concerning D.S.Y.

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the termination of a father's parental rights over his daughter. The court held that appointed counsel may file a Korth brief in an abuse and neglect appeal when counsel identifies no arguably meritorious issues, because the Anders procedure applies in termination-of-parental-rights appeals. The court rejected the father's individually raised challenges concerning the use of his history, visitation conditions, judicial bias, and alleged church-attendance requirement.

Holdings

1. When appointed counsel represents an indigent parent in a parental-termination appeal and concludes that there are no nonfrivolous issues, counsel may file an Anders-type brief; because Korth defines the Anders procedure in South Dakota, filing a Korth brief was procedurally appropriate.
2. The circuit court properly considered father's past domestic abuse charges and prison sentence, and the conditions requiring aftercare, NA, AA, and counseling before visitation were consistent with the child's best interests and constituted reasonable preliminary steps toward reunification.
3. Father's bias claim failed because the record did not support his allegation that the court stated it disliked him; in any event, ordinary critical, impatient, dissatisfied, or annoyed judicial remarks ordinarily do not establish bias or partiality.
4. The record did not show that church attendance was imposed as a condition of counseling or that counseling was withheld because father objected to church attendance; therefore, the religious-freedom claim lacked merit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether appointed counsel may file a Korth brief in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights when counsel identifies no nonfrivolous issues but presents issues requested by the client.
2. Whether the circuit court improperly considered father's prior domestic abuse charges and prison sentence in terminating his parental rights.
3. Whether DSS improperly conditioned visitation on father's participation in aftercare, NA, AA, and counseling.
4. Whether the circuit court was impermissibly biased against father.
5. Whether father's freedom of religion was violated because a counselor suggested church attendance.

Disposition

affirmed