Morris v. Morris ( 2015 )

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
Kevin William Morris, Respondent,
v.
Brittani Leigh Miers Morris, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-000027
Appeal From Greenville County
Alvin D. Johnson, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-278
Submitted May 1, 2015 – Filed June 10, 2015
AFFIRMED
H. Michael Spivey, of The Spivey Law Group, LLC, of
Mauldin, for Appellant.
David Alan Wilson, of The Law Offices of David A.
Wilson, LLC, and Christine Marie Howard, of Law
Office of Christine M. Howard, both of Greenville, for
Respondent.
Elizabeth Martin-Young, of Greenville, Guardian ad
Litem.
PER CURIAM: In this child custody action, Brittani Morris (Mother) appeals the
order of the family court awarding custody of her son (Child) to his father, Kevin
Morris (Father). Mother argues the family court erred in (1) disregarding
precedent, (2) granting custody to Father when it was not in Child's best interest
and finding Father's location of residence was a better place for Child to live, (3)
not following proper procedures during trial in prompting counsel to object, (4)
prohibiting further cross-examination and preventing impeachment of multiple
witnesses, (5) permitting witnesses to testify and admitting certain exhibits into
evidence without timely notice, (6) transferring jurisdiction to a Georgia family
court, and (7) requiring her to exercise visitation in Georgia. We affirm.
1. The family court properly addressed the precedent Mother asserted was
applicable. See Moeller v. Moeller, 394 S.C. 365, 374, 714 S.E.2d 898, 903 (Ct.
App. 2011) (stating separation of siblings is a factor in determining custody); id. at
367-69, 373, 714 S.E.2d at 899-900, 902 (noting evidence showed siblings lived
together full-time for multiple years and were significantly attached to each other);
Brown v. Brown, 362 S.C. 85, 90, 606 S.E.2d 785, 788 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding
the paramount factor in custody disputes is the best interest of the child); Altman v.
Griffith, 372 S.C. 388, 403, 642 S.E.2d 619, 627 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding no
single factor controls in custody disputes and the family court considers the totality
of the circumstances in determining custody).
2. The family court did not err in finding it was in Child's best interest to grant
custody to Father. See Shirley v. Shirley, 342 S.C. 324, 329-30, 536 S.E.2d 427,
429-30 (Ct. App. 2000) (noting while this court has jurisdiction to correct errors of
law and find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the
evidence, child custody decisions are matters left largely to the discretion of the
family court); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 388, 709 S.E.2d 650, 653 (2011)
(stating the family court's findings should be given broad discretion because it is in
a superior position to judge witness demeanor and veracity); id. at 392, 709 S.E.2d
at 655 (holding an appellate court will affirm the family court's findings unless the
appellant establishes the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the
family court); Ford v. Ford, 242 S.C. 344, 349, 130 S.E.2d 916, 920 (1963)
(stating the controlling considerations in child custody cases are the best interests
and welfare of the children); Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 11, 471 S.E.2d 154,
157 (1996) (noting a family court "must consider the character, fitness, attitude,
and inclinations on the part of each parent as they impact the child" as well as the
"psychological, physical, environmental, spiritual, educational, medical, family,
emotional and recreational aspects of the child's life").
3. All of Mother's remaining issues are abandoned or unpreserved. See Bryson v.
Bryson, 378 S.C. 502, 510, 662 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding an issue
is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument in the
brief is unsupported by authority); Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 348
S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding short conclusory
statements unsupported by authority are abandoned on appeal and not presented for
review); Butler v. Butler, 385 S.C. 328, 343, 684 S.E.2d 191, 198-99 (Ct. App.
2009) (finding appellant abandoned certain issues when he "cited no statute, rule,
or case in support of [his] arguments in either his argument section or his
'Background Legal Principles' section" of his brief); S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First
Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) (stating
for an issue to be preserved for appellate review it "must have been (1) raised to
and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely
manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity"); Bochette v.
Bochette, 300 S.C. 109, 112, 386 S.E.2d 475, 477 (Ct. App. 1989) ("An appellant
may not use either oral argument or the reply brief as a vehicle to argue issues not
argued in the appellant's brief.").
AFFIRMED.1
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.