MILLER, Chief Justice.
Father appeals from an order of the circuit court, which divided the property of the parties and awarded restricted, but unsupervised, overnight visitation to lesbian mother. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTS
Michael and Lisa Chicoine were married on March 5, 1983, in Jefferson, South Dakota. The couple had two children, James, who was born on January 30, 1986, and Tyler, who was born October 23, 1987. Sometime during her pregnancy with Tyler, Lisa began the first of a series of admitted lesbian affairs which put a great strain on Chicoines’ marriage. This was an open and notorious affair, and Lisa’s lover even demanded that she be present for Tyler’s delivery.
In February, 1989, Lisa and her lover broke up; thereafter, Lisa entered a treatment program for anorexia nervosa. After Lisa left treatment, she returned to the marital home and openly began a series of homosexual affairs.
In August of 1989, Lisa and the children moved out of the Chicoines’ home and into the home of one of her lovers. During this time, Lisa and her lover made plans for Lisa to divorce Michael and obtain custody of the children for them to raise after she and her lesbian lover were “married.” Shortly thereafter, Michael obtained a temporary custody order and brought the children home.
In late August, 1989, Michael filed for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty. After a trial on the merits, the court granted Michael a divorce and awarded him custody of the children. Lisa, who was undergoing treatment for various psychological problems, did not contest the custody award.
On the issue of visitation, the trial court found that while “Lisa had been less than discrete about her sexual preference” in the past and while she admitted her behavior in front of the children was inappropriate, it was in the children’s best interest for Lisa to have restricted visitation rights. Lisa was awarded visitation every other weekend from 7:00 p.m. on Friday to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday; three weeks in the sum[893]*893mer; and, alternating holidays as follows: New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve; and Mother’s Day. The only restrictions were that no unrelated female or homosexual male could be present during the children’s visits.
The trial court also divided Chicoines’ property. Michael received all of the farmland and all of the farm machinery, livestock and crops. Lisa received a car, cash she had already withdrawn ($19,000), and a cash award of $41,912.
DECISION
I
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING UNSUPERVISED OVERNIGHT VISITATION.
Michael argues the trial court abused its discretion in allowing unsupervised overnight visitations to Lisa. The trial court has broad discretion in awarding custody of minor children and likewise visitation rights; therefore, the trial court’s decision can only be reversed upon a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. Madsen v. Madsen, 456 N.W.2d 551, 553 (S.D.1990); Jones v. Jones, 423 N.W.2d 517, 519 (S.D.1988); Lindley v. Lindley, 401 N.W.2d 732, 735 (S.D.1987); Saint-Pierre v. Saint-Pierre, 357 N.W.2d 250, 254 (S.D.1984).
In cases such as this, the court’s primary consideration is the best interests of the children. SDCL 30-27-19. Michael contends the children’s development will be harmed by the continued exposure to Lisa’s homosexual lifestyle; therefore, it is not in their "best interests” to have unsupervised overnight visits with their mother.
The trial court must determine from all the facts and circumstances what is in the best interests of the child “relative to the child’s temporal, mental and moral welfare.” Lindley, 401 N.W.2d at 735; SDCL 30-27-19. In most circumstances, “it will be in the best interests of children that they receive the love, affection, training, and companionship of their noncustodial parent.” Roberts v. Roberts, 22 Ohio App.3d 127, 128, 489 N.E.2d 1067, 1069 (1985). This is not true, however, “where the evidence establishes that exercise of visitation will be harmful to the welfare of the children; in this event, the right of the noncustodial parent to visit with his children can be limited, or, under extreme circumstances, prohibited altogether.” Id.
This court, in Rivers v. Rivers, 322 N.W.2d 864 (S.D.1982), denied the father overnight visitation because he was living with a woman to whom he was not married. We recognized that, as in child custody cases, the “harmful effect of parental misconduct committed in the presence of a child old enough to see and recognize it is self-evident.” Id. at 865. .
In Kallas v. Kallas, 614 P.2d 641 (Utah 1980), the Utah Supreme Court addressed the issue of a parent’s right to visitation. “Although a parent’s sexuality in and of itself is not alone a sufficient basis upon which to deny completely a parent’s fundamental right, the manifestation of one’s sexuality and resulting behavior patterns are relevant to custody and to the nature and scope of visitation.” Id. at 645 (emphasis added); see also MJP v. JGP, 640 P.2d 966, 968 (Okl.1982).
The record in this case reveals:
(1) Lisa has experienced a myriad of psychological problems including an eating disorder, depression, suicidal threats, sexual abuse as a child and active homosexual relationships with several female partners.
(2) In the last two years of the marriage, Lisa was absent from the home frequently.
(3) Lisa openly admits that she is an active homosexual and that she had many sexual encounters with female partners during the marriage to Michael.
(4) Lisa and the children moved out of the marital home and into Lisa’s lover’s home.
(5) Lisa and her lover were affectionate toward each other in front of the chil[894]*894dren, caressing, kissing and saying “I love you."
(6) The oldest son reacted by saying “Mommy don’t touch,” or “Don’t!” when Lisa and her lover held hands.
(7) Lisa and her lover were in an intimate position in bed when the oldest son entered the room. Lisa told her son to go back to bed and when questioned by her son as to why she was lying on top of the other woman, Lisa told him she was telling secrets. Lisa did not stop the sexual act to comfort her son.
(8) On at least two occasions, Lisa took the children to gay bars in Sioux City when she was out looking for her lover.
(9) On some occasions when the children were not present, Lisa publicly danced with females, kissing and caressing them on the dance floor.
(10) On some occasions, James and Tyler were allowed to get in bed to sleep with Lisa and her lover.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MILLER, Chief Justice.
Father appeals from an order of the circuit court, which divided the property of the parties and awarded restricted, but unsupervised, overnight visitation to lesbian mother. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTS
Michael and Lisa Chicoine were married on March 5, 1983, in Jefferson, South Dakota. The couple had two children, James, who was born on January 30, 1986, and Tyler, who was born October 23, 1987. Sometime during her pregnancy with Tyler, Lisa began the first of a series of admitted lesbian affairs which put a great strain on Chicoines’ marriage. This was an open and notorious affair, and Lisa’s lover even demanded that she be present for Tyler’s delivery.
In February, 1989, Lisa and her lover broke up; thereafter, Lisa entered a treatment program for anorexia nervosa. After Lisa left treatment, she returned to the marital home and openly began a series of homosexual affairs.
In August of 1989, Lisa and the children moved out of the Chicoines’ home and into the home of one of her lovers. During this time, Lisa and her lover made plans for Lisa to divorce Michael and obtain custody of the children for them to raise after she and her lesbian lover were “married.” Shortly thereafter, Michael obtained a temporary custody order and brought the children home.
In late August, 1989, Michael filed for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty. After a trial on the merits, the court granted Michael a divorce and awarded him custody of the children. Lisa, who was undergoing treatment for various psychological problems, did not contest the custody award.
On the issue of visitation, the trial court found that while “Lisa had been less than discrete about her sexual preference” in the past and while she admitted her behavior in front of the children was inappropriate, it was in the children’s best interest for Lisa to have restricted visitation rights. Lisa was awarded visitation every other weekend from 7:00 p.m. on Friday to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday; three weeks in the sum[893]*893mer; and, alternating holidays as follows: New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve; and Mother’s Day. The only restrictions were that no unrelated female or homosexual male could be present during the children’s visits.
The trial court also divided Chicoines’ property. Michael received all of the farmland and all of the farm machinery, livestock and crops. Lisa received a car, cash she had already withdrawn ($19,000), and a cash award of $41,912.
DECISION
I
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING UNSUPERVISED OVERNIGHT VISITATION.
Michael argues the trial court abused its discretion in allowing unsupervised overnight visitations to Lisa. The trial court has broad discretion in awarding custody of minor children and likewise visitation rights; therefore, the trial court’s decision can only be reversed upon a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. Madsen v. Madsen, 456 N.W.2d 551, 553 (S.D.1990); Jones v. Jones, 423 N.W.2d 517, 519 (S.D.1988); Lindley v. Lindley, 401 N.W.2d 732, 735 (S.D.1987); Saint-Pierre v. Saint-Pierre, 357 N.W.2d 250, 254 (S.D.1984).
In cases such as this, the court’s primary consideration is the best interests of the children. SDCL 30-27-19. Michael contends the children’s development will be harmed by the continued exposure to Lisa’s homosexual lifestyle; therefore, it is not in their "best interests” to have unsupervised overnight visits with their mother.
The trial court must determine from all the facts and circumstances what is in the best interests of the child “relative to the child’s temporal, mental and moral welfare.” Lindley, 401 N.W.2d at 735; SDCL 30-27-19. In most circumstances, “it will be in the best interests of children that they receive the love, affection, training, and companionship of their noncustodial parent.” Roberts v. Roberts, 22 Ohio App.3d 127, 128, 489 N.E.2d 1067, 1069 (1985). This is not true, however, “where the evidence establishes that exercise of visitation will be harmful to the welfare of the children; in this event, the right of the noncustodial parent to visit with his children can be limited, or, under extreme circumstances, prohibited altogether.” Id.
This court, in Rivers v. Rivers, 322 N.W.2d 864 (S.D.1982), denied the father overnight visitation because he was living with a woman to whom he was not married. We recognized that, as in child custody cases, the “harmful effect of parental misconduct committed in the presence of a child old enough to see and recognize it is self-evident.” Id. at 865. .
In Kallas v. Kallas, 614 P.2d 641 (Utah 1980), the Utah Supreme Court addressed the issue of a parent’s right to visitation. “Although a parent’s sexuality in and of itself is not alone a sufficient basis upon which to deny completely a parent’s fundamental right, the manifestation of one’s sexuality and resulting behavior patterns are relevant to custody and to the nature and scope of visitation.” Id. at 645 (emphasis added); see also MJP v. JGP, 640 P.2d 966, 968 (Okl.1982).
The record in this case reveals:
(1) Lisa has experienced a myriad of psychological problems including an eating disorder, depression, suicidal threats, sexual abuse as a child and active homosexual relationships with several female partners.
(2) In the last two years of the marriage, Lisa was absent from the home frequently.
(3) Lisa openly admits that she is an active homosexual and that she had many sexual encounters with female partners during the marriage to Michael.
(4) Lisa and the children moved out of the marital home and into Lisa’s lover’s home.
(5) Lisa and her lover were affectionate toward each other in front of the chil[894]*894dren, caressing, kissing and saying “I love you."
(6) The oldest son reacted by saying “Mommy don’t touch,” or “Don’t!” when Lisa and her lover held hands.
(7) Lisa and her lover were in an intimate position in bed when the oldest son entered the room. Lisa told her son to go back to bed and when questioned by her son as to why she was lying on top of the other woman, Lisa told him she was telling secrets. Lisa did not stop the sexual act to comfort her son.
(8) On at least two occasions, Lisa took the children to gay bars in Sioux City when she was out looking for her lover.
(9) On some occasions when the children were not present, Lisa publicly danced with females, kissing and caressing them on the dance floor.
(10) On some occasions, James and Tyler were allowed to get in bed to sleep with Lisa and her lover. Sometimes, Lisa would be unclothed.
(11) Lisa and her lover discussed getting married and raising the children in a homosexual marriage.
(12) Lisa admits that it is inappropriate to hold hands, kiss and show affection to her lesbian partners in front of her children.
(13) Lisa has openly exposed her homosexual feelings in front of her sons on more than one occasion.
(14) Dr. Arbis testified that “unless Lisa blatantly and consciously encourages them [the children] to engage in sexual behavior, or blatantly exhibits her sexual behavior in front of them, they will not receive any adverse developmental messages in terms of their own sexual preferences.
Although the trial court tried to protect the children through the visitation restrictions, “we are troubled by the order’s incomplete response to the uncontroverted evidence concerning the harm threatened to the children” by its granting extensive, unsupervised, overnight visitation. Roberts, 489 N.E.2d at 1069. The trial court has a duty to ensure the children are protected at every turn. Williams v. Williams, 426 N.W.2d 390, 393 (S.D.1988); Jasper v. Jasper, 361 N.W.2d 114, 117 (S.D.1984). As we said in Williams, “at the very least, trial courts have the authority, and at times the obligation, to require a homestudy ... so it can be assured that the children are not placed, or do not remain, in surroundings seriously detrimental to their well-being.” 426 N.W.2d at 393.
[T]his is one of those situations where the trial court had the obligation to do more. Judges in these cases have the awesome responsibility to protect children and '[t]he parents’ personal wishes and desires must yield to what the court in the discharge of its duty regards as the children’s best interest.’
Shoop v. Shoop, 460 N.W.2d 721, 727 (S.D.1990) (Miller, C.J., dissenting) (citing Jasper, 351 N.W.2d at 117; Williams, 426 N.W.2d at 393).
Lisa and her psychologist have indicated that they believe she is now prepared and capable of providing a suitable environment for the children. At this juncture, this conclusion appears to us to be both speculative and premature. We are not reassured, given Lisa’s past actions, that she will put the needs of her children first.
The trial court must have shared these doubts, since it placed restrictions on the visitation rights. However, these restrictions, especially considering the liberal visitation rights granted, are difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Before granting such liberal visitation rights, the trial court must avail itself of other means, including a home study, to be assured that the children are not placed in an unsafe or unstable environment. Similarly, the trial court must provide adequate enforcement measures to assure compliance with any restrictions imposed should it persist in granting overnight visitation.
We reverse and remand with the direction that the trial court reconsider this issue in light of this holding.
[895]*895II
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DIVIDING THE PROPERTY.
It is well settled that the trial court has broad discretion with respect to property division and, absent an abuse of discretion, its judgment will not be set aside. Caughron v. Caughron, 418 N.W.2d 791, 792 (S.D.1988); Tate v. Tate, 394 N.W.2d 309, 311 (S.D.1986). “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence.” Paradeis v. Paradeis, 461 N.W.2d 135, 137 (S.D.1990) (citing Bradeen v. Bradeen, 430 N.W.2d 87, 91 (S.D.1988)). Trial courts have full power to make an equitable division of the property belonging to the parties to a divorce action and, in making such division of property, it shall have regard for equity and the circumstances of the parties. Saint-Pierre, 357 N.W.2d at 257; SDCL 25-4-44.
The factors to be considered in dividing marital property are the (1) duration of the marriage, (2) value of the property owned by the parties, (3) ages of the parties, (4) health of the parties, (5) competency of the parties to earn a living, (6) the contribution of each party to the accumulation of property, and (7) the income-producing capacity of the property owned by the parties. Johnson v. Johnson 471 N.W.2d 156, 159 (S.D.1991); Ryken v. Ryken, 461 N.W.2d 122, 123 (S.D.1990); Saint-Pierre, 357 N.W.2d at 258. The trial court considered and entered findings consistent with the foregoing.
In making a division of property in a divorce action, the trial court is bound by no mathematical formula. Johnson, 471 N.W.2d at 160; Baltzer v. Baltzer, 422 N.W.2d 584, 587 (S.D.1988); Booth v. Booth, 354 N.W.2d 924, 926 (S.D.1984); Owen v. Owen, 351 N.W.2d 139, 141 (S.D.1984).
The value of the real estate was $211,333 and the value of the personal property was $99,224. The liabilities on the real and personal property were $122,-100. Thus, the value of the gross marital estate was $310,557 and its net value was $188,457. The trial court awarded Lisa a net amount1 of $60,820, approximately thirty-two percent of the net estate.2
The trial court entered specific findings with respect to each of the seven factors set forth above. “In view of the fact that there is an adequate basis in the record to support each of the trial court’s findings regarding the division of property, and because it quite clearly appears that the trial court took into account all of the pertinent factors in making that division, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the property.” Booth, 354 N.W.2d at 927.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
AMUNDSON, J., concurs.
WUEST and SABERS, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
HENDERSON, J., concurs specially in part and dissents in part.