SCDSS v. Monroe Holmes

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.
Veronica Denise Chandler and Monroe Holmes,
Defendants,
Of Whom Monroe Holmes is the Appellant.
In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.
Appellate Case No. 2014-001783
Appeal From Horry County
Monét S. Pincus, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-167
Submitted March 24, 2016 – Filed April 1, 2016
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Carla Faye Grabert-Lowenstein, of Law Office of Carla
Faye Grabert-Lowenstein LLC, of Conway, for
Appellant.
Ernest Joseph Jarrett, of Jenkinson Jarrett & Kellahan,
PA, of Kingstree, for Respondent.
Ian Andrew Taylor, of The Taylor Law Office L.L.C., of
Pawleys Island, for the Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Monroe Holmes (Father) appeals the family court's termination
of his parental rights to his two minor children (collectively, Children). On appeal,
Father argues the family court erred by finding (1) section 63-7-2570(1) of the
South Carolina Code (Supp. 2015) applied to him even though Children did not
reside at his domicile, (2) clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory
grounds for TPR, and (3) clear and convincing evidence showed TPR was in the
best interest of Children.1 We reverse and remand.
The basis of the family court's termination of Father's parental rights was Mother's
continued drug use. Based on our finding in Mother's case that the family court
erred in admitting evidence of Mother's positive drug tests, we reverse the
termination of Father's parental rights and remand this matter to the family court
"with leave to open the record to receive any other evidence pertinent to a
determination as to whether [M]other has overcome her drug addiction and to give
DSS the opportunity to present a proper chain of custody." S.C. Dep't of Soc.
Servs. v. Cochran, 356 S.C. 413, 419, 589 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2003); see also S.C.
Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Cochran, 364 S.C. 621, 630, 614 S.E.2d 642, 646-47 (2005)
(concluding a proper establishment of chain of custody for samples to be used in
drug testing was met when DSS presented testimony the samples were secured
when collected, the samples arrived at the testing facility sealed and intact, and
from each person involved in the actual testing as to their handling of the samples
and the chain of custody).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.2
HUFF, A.C.J., and KONDUROS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
Veronica Chandler, Children's mother (Mother), also appealed the termination of
her parental rights to Children. S.C. Dep't of Social Servs. v. Chandler, Op. No.
2016-UP-166 (S.C. Ct. App. filed April 1, 2016). In Mother's appeal, she argued
DSS failed to authenticate key evidence of her continued drug use.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.