SCDSS v. Hill ( 2017 )

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.
Catherine R. Phalen and Justin Hill, Defendants,
Of whom Justin Hill is the Appellant.
In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.
Appellate Case No. 2016-001252
Appeal From Cherokee County
Gwendlyne Y. Jones, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-131
Submitted March 14, 2017 – Filed March 21, 2017
AFFIRMED
Joseph L.V. Johnson, of Saint-Amand Thompson &
Mathis, LLC, of Gaffney, for Appellant.
Travis Shane Greene, of the South Carolina Department
of Social Services, of Gaffney, for Respondent.
Beth McElroy Bullock, of Beth M. Bullock, PA, of
Gaffney, for the Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 290, 513 S.E.2d 358, 363 (1999)
(recognizing interlocutory family court orders are not immediately appealable);
S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(1) (2017) (providing "if no appeal be taken until final
judgment is entered the court may upon appeal from such final judgment review
any intermediate order or decree necessarily affecting the judgment not before
appealed from"); Charleston Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Father, Stepmother, &
Mother, 317 S.C. 283, 287 n.6, 454 S.E.2d 307, 309 n.6 (1995) (holding section
14-3-330 applies to equity cases); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 384, 709 S.E.2d
650, 651 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, the appellate court has
jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the
evidence." (quoting Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 479, 682 S.E.2d 804, 807
(2009))); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-20(21) (Supp. 2016) ("'Preponderance of
evidence' means evidence which, when fairly considered, is more convincing as to
its truth than the evidence in opposition."); Fiddie v. Fiddie, 384 S.C. 120, 124,
681 S.E.2d 42, 44 (Ct. App. 2009) (recognizing this court is "not required to ignore
the fact that the [family] court, who 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 391, 709 S.E.2d at 655 (stating the burden is on the
appellant to convince this court that the family court erred in its findings); S.C.
Code Ann. § 19-1-180(A) (2014) ("An out-of-court statement made by a child who
is under twelve years of age . . . at the time of a family court proceeding brought
pursuant to Title 63 concerning an act of alleged abuse or neglect as defined by
[s]ection 63-7-20 is admissible in the family court proceeding if the requirements
of this section are met regardless of whether the statement would be otherwise
inadmissible."); S.C. Code Ann. § 19-1-180(B) (2014) ("An out-of-court statement
may be admitted as provided in subsection (A) if . . . the child is found by the court
to be unavailable to testify . . . [and] the child's out-of-court statement is shown to
possess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."); S.C. Code Ann. § 19-1-
180(D) (2014) ("In determining whether a statement possesses particularized
guarantees of trustworthiness . . . , the court may consider, but is not limited to, the
following factors: (1) the child's personal knowledge of the event; (2) the age and
maturity of the child; (3) certainty that the statement was made, including the
credibility of the person testifying about the statement; (4) any apparent motive the
child may have to falsify or distort the event, including bias, corruption, or
coercion; (5) whether more than one person heard the statement; (6) whether the
child was suffering pain or distress when making the statement; (7) the nature and
duration of any alleged abuse; (8) whether the child's young age makes it unlikely
that the child fabricated a statement that represents a graphic, detailed account
beyond the child's knowledge and experience; (9) whether the statement has a ring
of verity, has internal consistency or coherence, and uses terminology appropriate
to the child's age; (10) whether extrinsic evidence exists to show the defendant's
opportunity to commit the act complained of in the child's statement.").
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., and LEE, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.