SCDSS v. Dean ( 2021 )

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.
Heather Lynn Dean and Joseph Kasey, Defendants,
Of whom Heather Lynn Dean is the Appellant.
In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen.
Appellate Case No. 2020-001480
Appeal From Horry County
Ronald R. Norton, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-169
Submitted April 29, 2021 – Filed May 14, 2021
AFFIRMED
Heather Vry Scalzo, of Byford & Scalzo, LLC, of
Greenville, for Appellant.
Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Michael Julius Schwartz, of Russell B. Long, PA; and
Heather Marie Moore, of Axelrod & Associates, PA, of
Myrtle Beach, for the Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Heather Lynn Dean (Mother) appeals an order terminating her
parental rights to Child. On appeal, Mother argues the family court erred in
terminating her parental rights based on (1) severe or repetitious harm, (2) willful
failure to visit, (3) willful failure to support, and (4) abandonment. Mother also
contends no evidence showed termination of parental rights (TPR) was in Child's
best interest. We affirm.
On appeal from the family court, this court reviews factual and legal issues de
novo. Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414-15, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011);
see also Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011). Although
this court reviews the family court's findings de novo, we are 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. Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385, 709 S.E.2d at 651-52.
The family court may order TPR upon finding a statutory ground for TPR is met
and TPR is in the child's best interest. S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2020).
The grounds for TPR must be proved 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).
Clear and convincing evidence showed Mother failed to remedy the conditions
causing removal.1 See § 63-7-2570(2) (stating a statutory ground for TPR exists
when "[t]he child has been removed from the parent . . . and has been out of the
home for a period of six months following the adoption of a placement plan by
court order . . . and the parent has not remedied the conditions which caused the
removal"). Mother was ordered to complete a placement plan in April 2019, which
required Mother to: (1) obtain and maintain appropriate housing, (2) submit to an
alcohol and drug assessment and follow all recommendations, (3) participate in
parenting classes, and (4) submit to random drug screens with any refusal deemed
a positive test. Mother's counselor at ParentsCare testified Mother attended only
two parenting classes. The Department of Social Services (DSS) liaison at
Shoreline Behavioral Health Services stated Mother did not attend any of the
services she was referred to. We acknowledge Mother's testimony that she lacked
1
We note Mother did not raise this issue in her brief to this court.
a driver's license and had difficulty obtaining transportation to services; however,
DSS offered Mother transportation services until Mother's allegedly aggressive
conduct precluded further services. Importantly, Mother's incarcerations do not
excuse her failure to complete her placement plan; Mother was ordered to
complete the plan in April 2019 and made no progress towards completing the plan
during the time she was not incarcerated. At the TPR hearing, Mother remained
incarcerated, admitted she was still addicted to drugs, and did not have a plan to
secure stable housing. Accordingly, we find clear and convincing evidence
showed Mother failed to remedy the conditions causing removal.2
Additionally, viewed from Child's perspective, we find TPR was in her best
interest. See S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Smith, 343 S.C. 129, 133, 538 S.E.2d 285,
287 (Ct. App. 2000) (providing the best interest of the child is the paramount
consideration in TPR cases). The guardian ad litem (the GAL) reported Child was
doing well in her foster placement, receiving counseling, and enjoying school.
Importantly, the precipitating event for this case involved Child's truancy, and it is
notable that Child is now not only enrolled in school, but apparently excelling.
The GAL recommended TPR due to Mother's inability to maintain stable housing
or make progress on her placement plan. Considering the GAL's report
recommending TPR with Mother's lack of interest in completing her placement
plan, we find TPR is in Child's best interest.
AFFIRMED.3
LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.
2
Because clear and convincing evidence supports this statutory ground, we decline
to address the remaining grounds. See S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Headden, 354
S.C. 602, 613, 582 S.E.2d 419, 425 (2003) (declining to address a statutory ground
for TPR after concluding clear and convincing evidence supported another
statutory ground).
3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.