Stroman v. Robinson

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL
VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Ronald D. Stroman,       
Respondent,

v.

Janie Robinson,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

Anne Gue Jones, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-005

Submitted December 1, 2004 – Filed January
7, 2005

AFFIRMED

Janie Robinson, of Orangeburg, for Appellant, pro se.

Ronald Dewey Stroman, Sr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Janie Robinson appeals from
a family court order modifying a previous visitation order and holding her in
contempt for failing to allow Ronald D. Stroman visitation with the parties’
child.  We affirm [1] pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-420(36)
(Supp. 2003) (granting the family court jurisdiction to issue orders compelling
investigation by the Department of Social Services); Rule 208(b)(1)(B) (“The
statement [of issues on appeal] shall be concise and direct as to each issue
. . . .  Broad general statements may be disregarded by the appellate court.
Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement
of the issues on appeal.”); Rule 208(b)(1)(D) (“At the head of each part, the
particular issue to be addressed shall be set forth in distinctive type, followed
by discussion and citations of authority.”); Rule 208(b)(4) (“The brief shall
contain references to the transcript, pleadings, orders, exhibits, or other
materials which may be properly included in the Record on Appeal [see Rule 210(c)]
to support the salient facts alleged.”);  State v. Burton, 356 S.C.
259, 265 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) (“A pro se litigant who knowingly
elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with substantive
and procedural requirements of the law.”); Pirayesh v. Pirayesh, 
359 S.C. 284, 299, 596 S.E.2d 505, 513 (Ct. App. 2004) (applying the best
interest of the child standard when considering a parent’s ability to travel
with his or her children); Paparella v. Paparella, 340 S.C. 186, 191,
531 S.E.2d 297, 300 (Ct. App. 2000) (“As with child custody, the welfare
and best interests of the child are the primary considerations in determining
visitation.  Similarly, visitation is addressed to the broad discretion of the
family court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse.”). 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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