(concurring specially).
[¶ 27.] I concur but write specially to point out that any judgment or modification of the judgment as proposed by the dissent would unnecessarily promote a multiplicity of actions. Of necessity, David (for himself and his family) would be foolish not to attempt to offset any such judgment by bringing actions against Linda for alienation of affections, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or tortious interference with the parenVchild relationship as provided in Hershey v. Hershey, 467 N.W.2d 484 (S.D.1991).
[¶ 28.] Finally, Justice Konenkamp’s dissent states: “How can we take the ‘child’ out of child support?” The simple answer is that the child is not in this case, and claiming this action is for support for the child does not alter that fact or put the child in the case. See n.l of the majority opinion. Therefore, the premise of the dissent is fiction, not fact.