SCDSS v. Tasha M. ( 2012 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
South Carolina Department of Social Services,
Respondent,
v.
Tasha M., Jerome M., Roosevelt M., John Doe #1, John
Doe #2, Defendants,
Of whom Tasha M. is the Appellant,
In the interest of three minor children under the age of
18.
Appellate Case No. 2011-201688
Appeal From Williamsburg County
Angela R. Taylor, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-473
Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed July 27, 2012
AFFIRMED
Joe Ann M. Calvy, of Kingstree, for Appellant.
Ernest Joseph Jarrett, of Jenkinson, Jarrett & Kellahan,
PA, of Kingstree, for Respondent.
William M. O'Bryan, Jr., of O'Bryan & O'Bryan, of
Kingstree, for Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Tasha M. (Mother) appeals the family court's termination of her
parental rights to her three minor children (Children). The family court found clear
and convincing evidence supported termination of Mother's parental rights on the
grounds that Children were in foster care for fifteen of the last twenty-two months,
Mother failed to support Children, and Mother failed to remedy the conditions that
caused removal. Mother argues the family court erred in terminating her parental
rights when the Department of Social Services (DSS) failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence the grounds for termination of parental rights (TPR) and that
TPR was in Children's best interest. We affirm.1
The grounds for TPR must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. S.C. Dep't
of Soc. Servs. v. Parker, 336 S.C. 248, 254, 519 S.E.2d 351, 354 (Ct. App. 1999).
"Upon review, the appellate court may make its own finding from the record as to
whether clear and convincing evidence supports the termination [of parental
rights]." S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Headden, 354 S.C. 602, 609, 582 S.E.2d 419,
423 (2003). However, despite our broad scope of review, this court is not required
to disregard the findings of "the family court, who saw and heard the witnesses,
[and] was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative
weight to their testimony." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The family
court may order TPR upon finding one or more of eleven statutory grounds is met
and TPR is in the child's best interests. S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (2010 &
Supp. 2011). "[T]he best interests of the children are the paramount
consideration." S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Smith, 343 S.C. 129, 133, 538 S.E.2d
285, 287 (Ct. App. 2000). "The interests of the child shall prevail if the child's
interest and the parental rights conflict." S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2620 (2010).
One statutory ground for TPR was met because Children have been in foster care
for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-
2570(8) (2010) (explaining one statutory ground for TPR is met when "[t]he child
has been in foster care under the responsibility of the State for fifteen of the most
recent twenty-two months"). Mother did not appeal this ground, and therefore, this
finding is the law of the case. See Transp. Ins. Co. & Flagstar Corp. v. S.C.
Second Injury Fund, 389 S.C. 422, 431, 699 S.E.2d 687, 691 (2010) ("An
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirmance."). Additionally,
the record contains testimony that TPR was in Children's best interest. Children
have special needs that require regular doctor's appointments and medication.
They have thrived in their foster homes. To date, Mother has failed to fully
comply with her treatment plan. Furthermore, the record indicates Mother's ability
to live independently and properly care for Children without assistance is limited.
Although Mother and Children seem to have a loving parent-child relationship,
Children would be best served by the stability offered by TPR. An adoptive family
has been identified and approved to adopt all three of the children together,
offering stability in the future. These considerations and Children's Guardian ad
Litem's opinion that TPR would best serve Children further convince us that it is in
the best interest of Children to terminate Mother's parental rights. Accordingly, we
find clear and convincing evidence in the record shows TPR is in Children's best
interest. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the family court's order terminating
Mother's parental rights.
AFFIRMED.2
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.