Richard T. Goldsmith v. Hailey M. Efird ( 2023 )

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
Richard T. Goldsmith, Appellant,
v.
Hailey M. Efird, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2022-000642
Appeal From York County
Angela J. Moss, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-377
Submitted November 1, 2023 – Filed November 28, 2023
AFFIRMED
Stephen D. Schusterman, of Schusterman Law Firm, of
Rock Hill, for Appellant.
Hailey M. Efird, of Tega Cay, pro se.
PER CURIAM: Richard T. Goldsmith (Father) appeals family court orders
granting Hailey M. Efird (Mother) extended visitation with their minor child (Child)
and awarding Mother child support. On appeal, Father argues the family court erred
in granting Mother extended visitation, failing to make specific findings when
determining child support, and applying Worksheet C to calculate child support. We
affirm.
As to Father's argument the family court erred in granting Mother extended visitation
with Child, we hold the extended visitation schedule is in Child's best interests. See
Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593, 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) (stating an appellate
court reviews the family court's decisions de novo). Father is right that the record
contains ample evidence of the parties' contentious relationship and Mother's history
with substance abuse. Still, evidence presented at the final hearing showed, among
other things: (1) Mother was Child's primary custodial parent prior to the initiation
of this case; (2) Mother and Child had a close relationship; (3) Mother and Child
lived with Child's maternal grandmother (Grandmother) for a significant portion of
Child's life, and Child had thrived in Mother and Grandmother's care; and (4) Child's
demeanor changed after moving to Father's home pursuant to the temporary order,
and Child informed the guardian ad litem she missed Mother and wanted to spend
more time with her. The family court considered, and made adequate findings on,
the factors listed in section 63-15-240(B) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2023),
and put appropriate measures in place to address issues between the parties and any
future substance use by Mother. Because the family court, which saw and heard the
witnesses, ordered a visitation schedule that would protect Child, while also
allowing Child to spend more time with Mother, we affirm that the extended
visitation schedule is in Child's best interests. See Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 385,
709 S.E.2d 650, 651-52 (2011) (stating that although an appellate court reviews the
family court's findings de novo, the court is not required to ignore the fact that the
family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate
their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Ashburn v.
Rogers, 420 S.C. 411, 416, 803 S.E.2d 469, 471 (Ct. App. 2017) ("Consistent with
[a] de novo review, the appellant retains the burden to show that the family court's
findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence; otherwise, the
findings will be affirmed."); Paparella v. Paparella, 340 S.C. 186, 191, 531 S.E.2d
297, 300 (Ct. App. 2000) ("As with child custody, the welfare and best interests of
the child are the primary considerations in determining visitation."); § 63-15-240(B)
(listing factors the family court may consider when determining whether a custodial
arrangement is in the best interest of the child).
As to Father's argument the family court erred in failing to make specific findings
when deciding not to award child support in its original custody order, we hold this
argument is moot because the family court amended its findings in its order on
Father's motion for reconsideration. See Sloan v. Greenville Cnty., 380 S.C. 528,
535, 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An appellate court will not pass
judgment on moot and academic questions; it will not adjudicate a matter when no
actual controversy capable of specific relief exists."); see also Klein v. Barrett, 427
S.C. 74, 90, 828 S.E.2d 773, 781 (Ct. App. 2019) (finding an argument about clerical
or typographical errors in the family court's child support calculation was moot
because the family court subsequently "corrected and clarified its calculation").
As to Father's argument the family court erred in utilizing Worksheet C to calculate
child support, we hold that under the facts of this case, the family court did not err
in calculating child support pursuant to Worksheet C and adequately explained its
reasoning for doing so in its order on Father's motion for reconsideration. See
Stoney, 422 S.C. at 596, 813 S.E.2d at 487 (stating an appellate court reviews the
family court's decisions de novo). Under the family court's final order, Mother and
Father received significant time with Child, with Mother receiving 140 overnights—
approximately 38% of overnights—with Child and Father receiving 225
overnights—approximately 62% of overnights with Child. Further, Father's gross
monthly income was far superior to Mother's gross monthly income. Moreover, both
parties were to contribute to Child's expenses and care in addition to child support.
See Burch v. Burch, 395 S.C. 318, 331, 717 S.E.2d 757, 764 (2011) (noting that
when awarding child support, family courts are "generally required to follow" the
child support guidelines); S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 114-4730(A) (Supp. 2023)
(defining shared physical custody as each parent having more than 109 overnights
of court-ordered visitation per year and each parent contributing "to the expenses of
the child(ren) in addition to the payment of child support"); id. ("The amount of
visitation . . . is left to the discretion of the [family court] in consideration of the
various factors of the Children's Code, and the use of the calculation on Worksheet
C in shared physical custody cases is advisory and not compulsory."); id. (stating the
family "court should consider each case individually before applying the adjustment
to ensure that it does not produce a substantial negative effect on the child(ren)'s
standard of living"); S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 114-4730(A)(1) (Supp. 2023) ("Child
support for cases with shared physical custody shall be calculated using Worksheet
C.").
Accordingly, the family court orders are
AFFIRMED. 1
WILLIAMS, C.J., and HEWITT and VERDIN, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.