Jessica N. Barber v. Staton Q. Moss

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

Jessica Nicole Barber, Respondent,

v.

Stanton Quentin Moss, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2021-001433

Appeal From York County
David G. Guyton, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-085
Submitted February 28, 2023 – Filed March 13, 2023

AFFIRMED

Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks,
Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Margaret Elizabeth Decker and Carrie L. Lehmann, both
of Sodoma Law, P.C., of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

N. Beth Ramsey Faulkner, of Faulkner Law Firm, LLC,
of Clover, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Stanton Moss (Father) appeals a family court order terminating
his parental rights to his minor children (Children). On appeal, he argues the
family court erred in finding (1) he willfully failed to visit Children, (2) he
willfully failed to support Children, and (3) termination of parental rights (TPR)
was in Children'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, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011); 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, 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. 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. 2022). 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).

The family court properly found clear and convincing evidence showed Father
willfully failed to support Children. See § 63-7-2570(4) (providing a statutory
ground for TPR is met when a "child has lived outside the home of either parent
for a period of six months, and during that time the parent has wil[l]fully failed to
support the child"); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 53, 413
S.E.2d 835, 839 (1992) ("Conduct of the parent which evinces a settled purpose to
forego parental duties may fairly be characterized as 'willful' because it manifests a
conscious indifference to the rights of the child to receive support and consortium
from the parent."); id. at 52, 413 S.E.2d at 838 (stating the family court's
determination of willfulness is given "wide discretion" but confirming willfulness
must be shown by clear and convincing evidence).
At the October 24, 2021 TPR hearing, Father admitted he had not contributed to
Children's care since April or May 2017. Moreover, he testified he held numerous
jobs from 2017 until the TPR hearing, collected unemployment during the
COVID-19 pandemic, and supported another of his children as well as a child who
was not biologically related to him. Although Father asserted he did not offer
support because Jessica Barber (Mother) told him she did not want his money,
Mother denied indicating she did not want support from Father; the family court
generally found Mother's testimony was more credible than Father's and
specifically found Father's inability to provide any support for Children was
"unfathomable." Father also acknowledged he never filed an action for child
support and never mailed Children birthday cards, checks, or any other items,
despite knowing where Mother and Children lived. Based on Father's failure to
provide any measure of support despite his demonstrated ability to do so, we hold
clear and convincing evidence showed he willfully failed to support Children. See
§ 63-7-2570(4) ("The court may consider all relevant circumstances in determining
whether or not the parent has wil[l]fully failed to support the child, including
requests for support by the custodian and the ability of the parent to provide
support."); Parker, 336 S.C. at 256, 519 S.E.2d at 355 ("Whether a parent's failure
to visit or support a child is 'willful' within the meaning of [the statute] is a
question of intent to be determined from all the facts and circumstances in each
case.").

The family court properly found clear and convincing evidence showed TPR was
in Children's best interest. See S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Cochran, 364 S.C. 621,
626, 614 S.E.2d 642, 645 (2005) ("Parental rights warrant vigilant protection under
the law and due process mandates a fundamentally fair procedure when the state
seeks to terminate the parent-child relationship."); id. ("However, a child has a
fundamental interest in terminating parental rights if the parent-child relationship
inhibits establishing secure, stable, and continuous relationships found in a home
with proper parental care."); id. at 626-27, 614 S.E.2d at 645 ("In balancing these
interests, the best interest of the child is paramount to that of the parent."); 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.").

Father admitted that at the time of the TPR hearing, he had not seen Children or
attempted to support them for over four years. As described above, Father also had
not attempted to contact Children or send them letters, cards, or any other item in
order to foster a connection with them. The guardian ad litem (GAL) reported
Children were aware they had no contact with Father, and Child 2—who was eight
years old at the time of the hearing—had lived apart from Father since she was an
infant. Further, Mother testified she had a stable home, was able to support
Children on her own, and Children were close to their maternal grandmother, who
provided support for Mother in the form of helping homeschool Child 2 and
transporting Child 1 to and from school. The GAL testified Children were doing
well and were comfortable in the home with Mother and Mother's parents. Thus,
we hold TPR is in their best interest.1

1
Because we find clear and convincing evidence showed Father willfully failed to
support Children, we decline to address whether he willfully failed to visit
Children. See S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Headden, 354 S.C. 602, 613, 582 S.E.2d
AFFIRMED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

419, 425 (2003) (declining to address a statutory ground for TPR after concluding
clear and convincing evidence supported another statutory ground).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.