Adam C. v. Margaret B.

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

Adam C., Appellant,

   v.

Margaret B., Respondent.

In the interest of M.C., a minor child under the age of 18.

Appeal From Florence County

Angela R. Taylor, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-269

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 6, 2010

AFFIRMED

April S. Purvis, of Florence, for
Appellant.

Marian D. Nettles, of Lake City, and
Nicholas W. Lewis, of Florence, for Respondent.

Michele R. Krize, of Florence, Guardian Ad
Litem.

PER CURIAM:  Adam C. (Father) appeals the family court's final order terminating his
parental rights to his minor child (Child).  On appeal, Father contends the family court erred in finding (1) he willfully failed to support
and visit Child and (2) termination of parental rights (TPR) was in Child's best
interests.  We affirm.[1]

The grounds for TPR must be
proven 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).  "Upon
review, the appellate court may make its own finding from the record as to
whether clear and convincing evidence supports [TPR]."  S.C. Dep't of
Soc. Servs. v. Headden, 354 S.C. 602, 609, 582 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2003). 
However, despite our broad scope of review, we are not required to disregard
the findings of "the family court, who saw and heard the witnesses, [and]
was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative
weight to their testimony."  Id.  The family court may order TPR upon finding one or more of eleven
statutory grounds is satisfied and also finding TPR is in the best interest of
the child.  S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (2010). 

We find clear and
convincing evidence supports the family court's finding Father willfully failed
to support Child.[2] 
 Father did not contribute any child support while imprisoned, nor did he
contribute to Child's care despite having the ability to do so when he was not
incarcerated.  Margaret B. (Mother) testified she did not receive any child
support from Father.  Additionally, Father admitted he did not make any direct
financial contributions for Child.  Furthermore, although Father attempted to
establish his mother (Grandmother) was contributing for Child's care on his
behalf, the family court's finding that Grandmother provided items to Child on
her own behalf without Father's participation is supported by clear and convincing
evidence.  Grandmother's testimony at the TPR hearing indicated she, not
Father, provided items to Child on her own behalf.  Moreover, the guardian ad
litem (GAL) stated Father's efforts towards Child were minimal and it appeared Grandmother
was the "driving force" behind the relationship.  See S.C.
Code Ann. § 63-7-2570(4) (2010) (stating one statutory ground for TPR is met
when the child has lived outside of the home of either parent for a period of
six months, and during that time the parent has willfully failed to support the
child). 

In a TPR case, the best
interests of the child are the paramount consideration.  S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
v. Smith, 343 S.C. 129, 133, 538 S.E.2d 285, 287 (Ct. App. 2000).  "The interests of the child shall prevail if the child's
interest and the parental rights conflict."  S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2620
(2010). 

We find clear and convincing
evidence in the record supports the family court's finding that termination of Father's
parental rights was in Child's best interests.  Father has a long history of
abusing drugs and criminal behavior stemming from his drug addiction. 
Additionally, Father admitted he suffers from bipolar depression and acted
violently in the past because of his mental illness.  In contrast, Mother and
her current boyfriend are providing a stable and loving environment for Child,
and the GAL stated Child was well-adjusted in her current home and interacted
well with both Mother and Mother's current boyfriend.  Additionally, Mother's
boyfriend testified he wanted to adopt Child, and terminating Father's parental
rights would allow the adoption process to proceed.[3] 
Accordingly, the family court correctly determined TPR was in Child's best
interests.       

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.

[2] Because we find Father willfully failed to support Child,
we need not address Father's failure to visit Child.  See Stinecipher
v. Ballington, 366 S.C. 92, 100 n.6, 620 S.E.2d 93, 98 n.6 (Ct. App. 2005)
(stating once one statutory ground is met, this court need not address whether
any other ground for TPR has been proved). 

[3] See Doe v. Roe, 386 S.C. 624, ___, 690
S.E.2d 573, 579 (2010) ("Overturning the family court's decision to terminate
Father's rights clearly conflicts with the TPR statute's purpose to make a
child eligible for adoption by someone 'who will provide a suitable home
environment and the love and care necessary for a happy, healthful, and
productive life.'") (quoting S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2510 (2010)).