Grandmother’s end-run around the proper statutory procedures. [¶ 13.] 2. Whether Mother was deprived of her constitutional right to procedural due process when the trial court allowed a non-parent to use the South Dakota Guardianship Act to involuntarily terminate her custodial rights. [¶ 14.] The use of the Guardianship Act in this case to effect a change of custody is not merely a procedural flaw. SDCL chapters 26-7A and 26-8A exist for the protection of the children, the parents and the family unit. Because these chapters deal with the fundamental right of parents to the care, custody, and control of then-children, they employ multiple constitutional safeguards that are not present in the Guardianship Act. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452
holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children recognizing that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care custody and control of their children holding that although parents have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children they have no fundamental right to allocate support to their children as they see fit