(dissenting).
[¶27] It was an abuse of discretion to award the physical custody of these children to the father. The father simply is not ready to take the responsibility necessary to raise three children of the tender years of 2, 4 and 6. This is especially so when one considers the fact that, at age 30, the father is just beginning to take responsibility for himself.
[¶ 28] The key findings of the psychologist, Dr. Price, were that:
4. Kevin shows “rebelliousness or kind of a tendency to feel angry inside. A tendency of being concerned about meeting [his] own needs, that type of thing;”
*1255. Kevin has a proclivity toward physical abuse;
6. Kevin is in the early stages of recovery from a chemical-dependency problem[.]
Although Father’s [parental quotient] score shows a good potential for parenting, the children need parenting now, not only in the future. Therefore, I disagree with the majority’s reliance on the trial court’s statement that “while Dawn may well be the preferable custodial parent at the immediate time, he was of the opinion that Kevin was the preferable parent over the ‘long haul.’ ”
[¶ 29] I think the trial court also erred by placing too much emphasis “upon the stability and continuity that Kevin could provide through his relationship with the Jones family.” These children don’t need to live on the farm to benefit from the “family support systems of the large and close Jones family.” I submit that this family support would be there at all times, even if the children lived in Sisseton with their mother.
[¶30] Therefore, the mother is the best custodian to nurture the children’s temporal, moral and mental welfare at this time and for the foreseeable future. SDCL 25-4-45.
[¶ 31] KONENKAMP, J., joins this dissent.