Johnson v. Smith

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Virginia M. Johnson, f/k/a Virginia M. Smith,       
Respondent,

v.

Walton A. Smith,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Edgefield County

C. David Sawyer, Jr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-583

Submitted July 15, 2003 – Filed October 2, 2003

AFFIRMED

Mr. Walton A. Smith, of Edgefield, for Appellant.

Carolyn B. Steigner and Daun C. Steigner, both of Lexington,
for Respondent.

M. Gwyn DuBose-Schmitt, of Lexington, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Walton A. Smith (Father) and
Virginia M. Johnson (Mother) divorced in 1997.  Pursuant to their divorce, Mother
was designated as the primary caretaker of their son, Cody, and Father was granted
visitation every Wednesday night and every other weekend.  Mother brought an
action to modify this visitation arrangement. Father counterclaimed, seeking
to increase his visitation with Cody.  The family court suspended father’s Wednesday
night visits, but gave him the right to keep Cody when mother was away overnight
and increased the number of weeks Cody could spend with him during the summer. 

Father appeals from this order, and we affirm
[1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: Holy
Loch Distribs., Inc. v. Hitchcock, 340 S.C. 20, 24, 531 S.E.2d 282, 284
(2000) (requiring an issue to be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge
in order to preserve it for appellate review);  Hollar v. Hollar, 342
S.C. 463, 563 S.E.2d 883 (Ct. App. 2000) (controlling considerations in all
child custody controversies are the child’s welfare and best interests);   In
re Estate of Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460, 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App.
1998) (“When a party receives an order that grants relief not previously contemplated
or presented to the trial court, the aggrieved party must move, pursuant to
Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to alter or amend the judgment in order to preserve the issue
for appeal.”);   Dorchester County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Miller, 324
S.C. 445, 477 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1996) (ruling that, because the appellate
court lacks the opportunity for direct observation of witnesses, it should accord
great deference to the family court’s findings where matters of credibility
are involved); Terwilliger v. Terwilliger, 298 S.C. 144, 378 S.E.2d 609
(Ct. App. 1989) (holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and
the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard
the testimony).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

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