SCDSS v. Anthony Bishop ( 2022 )

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.
Crystal Diana Berry and Anthony Bishop, Defendants,
Of whom Anthony Bishop is the Appellant.
In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen.
Appellate Case No. 2021-001200
Appeal From Greenville County
Thomas T. Hodges, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-420
Submitted November 18, 2022 – Filed November 21, 2022
AFFIRMED
Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks,
Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Rebecca Rush Wray, of South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Megan Goodwin Burke, of Greenville, for the Guardian
ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Anthony Bishop (Father) appeals a family court order
terminating his parental rights to his minor child (Child). Father argues the family
court erred in finding (1) he failed to remedy the conditions that caused Child's
removal and (2) termination of parental rights (TPR) was in Child's best interest.
We affirm.
On appeal from the family court, "this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de
novo." Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011).
Although this court reviews the family court's findings de novo, it 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. See Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 385-86, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651-52
(2011).
The family court may order TPR upon finding a statutory ground for TPR is met
and TPR is in the children's best interests. S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp.
2022). The grounds "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).
We find clear and convincing evidence showed a statutory ground for TPR was
met when Father failed to remedy the conditions that caused Child's removal. See
§ 63-7-2570(2) (providing a statutory ground for TPR is met 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"). The family
court issued an ex parte order for Child's removal based primarily on concerns
regarding Father's mental health condition and his unsuitable living conditions. In
February 2020, the family court ordered Father to complete a placement plan
requiring him to, inter alia, complete a mental health assessment and follow any
resulting recommendations and maintain stable housing. Father acknowledged that
although he submitted to a mental health assessment and subsequently attended
counseling two to three times a week, he ceased treatment after six months, and his
intake counselor testified Father was not successfully discharged from mental
health services. The counselor also stated Father admitted at the intake session that
he had not been taking his prescribed medications to address his mental health
diagnoses. Additionally, at the September 2021 TPR hearing, Father
acknowledged he had moved two weeks before the hearing, and his housing was
not appropriate for Child. Thus, we find the family court did not err in finding he
failed to remedy the conditions that caused Child's removal.
Further, we find TPR is in Child's 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) ("In a [TPR] case,
the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration."); S.C. Dep't of
Soc. Servs. v. Sarah W., 402 S.C. 324, 343, 741 S.E.2d 739, 749-50 (2013)
("Appellate courts must consider the child's perspective, and not the parent's, as the
primary concern when determining whether TPR is appropriate."). Child was
removed from Father's care in December 2019 because of concerns about Father's
mental health and his living conditions; as of the September 2021 TPR hearing, she
had been out of Father's care for almost two years. During that time,
uncontroverted testimony showed he had stopped taking his prescribed
medications for his mental health diagnoses and had stopped attending counseling.
Moreover, he admitted his current living situation was not appropriate for Child.
Additionally, since December 2019, Child had been living with a foster parent who
had adopted Child's older half-brother and also wished to adopt her. Although
Father maintained he and Child were bonded, the DSS case worker testified the
bond between Child, her half-brother, and her foster parent was "very strong."
Thus, although we acknowledge Father made progress on his placement plan and
maintained a bond with Child, his failure to fully address his mental health issues
or obtain suitable housing, along with DSS's identification of a pre-adoptive
placement for Child, lead us to conclude that TPR is in her best interest.
AFFIRMED. 1
KONDUROS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.