(concurring and concurring in result).
[¶ 26] I am satisfied that the trial court had jurisdiction over:
[¶ 27] 1. Tamara, the mother of all three children, Samantha, Jacob and Connor, which jurisdiction includes the right to determine visitation and support of all three children.
[¶ 28] 2. Patrick, the father of the two youngest children, Jacob and Connor, which jurisdiction includes the right to determine visitation and support of these two children.
[¶29] 3. The children, Samantha, Jacob and Connor, which jurisdiction includes the right to determine visitation and support of all three children.
[¶ 30] The fact that any decision concerning Samantha may not be binding upon the natural father of Samantha is immaterial here and now because he is not a party to the action and, for all practical purposes, has abandoned any parental rights to Samantha.
[¶ 31] The trial court essentially found that it would be in the best interest of Samantha to have visitation with Patrick on the same schedule with the other children. This was in her best interest and everyone seems to agree except Tamara. It is not necessary to modify Cooper to provide Samantha the right to visit Patrick with the other children because we are dealing with the right of the child to visit with her half siblings. At any rate, under these circumstances, it is not a matter of jurisdiction. Nor is it judicial legislation.
[¶ 32] Child support is for the benefit of the child, not the custodial parent. SDCL 25^1-45 and 25-7-6.1. As the mother, Tamara has no authority to deny Samantha Patrick’s voluntary support for Samantha’s care. If Tamara will not accept the funds for Samantha, a guardian will. The decision by the trial court concerning the volunteered child support from Patrick was not an abuse of discretion. Steffens v. Peterson, 503 N.W.2d 254, 257 (S.D.1993).
[¶ 33] Therefore, I concur in result on issues 1 and 2 and concur on issue 3, attorney fees.