SCDSS v. Grace W.

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.

Grace W. and
Robert S. W., Jr., Defendants,

Of whom Grace W.,
is the Appellant.

In
the interest of two minor children. 

Appeal From Greenwood County

Joseph W. McGowan, III, Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-549

Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed
December 17, 2010   

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND
REMANDED

Bryan Christopher Able, of Laurens, for
Appellant.

Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

Carson McCurry Henderson, of Greenwood, for
Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Grace
W. (Mother) appeals from the family court's order terminating her parental
rights to her two minor children (Son and Daughter, collectively Children).  The
family court concluded clear and convincing evidence supported termination of Mother's
parental rights pursuant to section 63-7-2870(1) of the South Carolina Code
(2010).  Additionally, the family court found termination of parental rights
(TPR) was in Children's best interests.  We affirm in part, reverse in part,
and remand.

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 the termination [of parental
rights]."  S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Headden, 354 S.C. 602, 609,
582 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2003).  The family
court may order TPR upon finding one or more of the 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).  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).   

Section 63-7-2570(1) of the
South Carolina Code (2010) provides for TPR if:

The
child or another child in the home has been harmed as defined in Section
63-7-20, and because of the severity or repetition of the abuse or neglect, it
is not reasonably likely that the home can be made safe within twelve months.
In determining the likelihood that the home can be made safe, the parent's
previous abuse or neglect of the child or another child in the home may be
considered.

Section 63-7-20(4) of the South Carolina Code (2010) states "child abuse
or neglect or harm" occurs when the parent "inflicts or allows to be
inflicted upon the child physical or mental injury or engages in acts or
omissions which present a substantial risk of physical or mental injury to the
child . . . ."

We agree with the family
court's findings that Daughter was harmed.  However, regarding whether it is
not reasonably likely the home can be made safe within twelve months, we find
the record is insufficient to determine whether it is reasonably likely
Mother's home could be made safe.  The original complaints for removal
requested the family court approve a treatment plan for Mother; however, the
Department of Social Services (DSS) testimony indicated that based on the
severity of Daughter's injuries, it did not offer Mother services.  However,
Mother requested DSS assistance in regaining custody of Children, and Mother completed
a psychological evaluation and attended parenting classes.  Mother also filed
for separation and divorce from her husband (Father), stating the only way she
could ensure the safety of Children was to be on her own.  Nonetheless, we are
concerned Mother admitted only she and Father cared for Daughter during the
weeks surrounding the time the injuries could have occurred.  Additionally, prior
to the abuse inflicted on Daughter, Son was removed from Mother's custody after
law enforcement received a report he was unattended in a highway.  Furthermore,
in its order, the family court did not provide any factual evidence in support
of its finding it was not reasonably likely Mother's home could be made safe
within twelve months as required by Rule 26, SCRFC.  See Rule 26(a), SCRFC ("An order or judgment pursuant to
an adjudication in a domestic relations case shall set forth the specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the [family] court's
decision."). 

Additionally, we find the
record is insufficient to determine whether termination of Mother's parental
rights was in Children's best interests.  At the TPR hearing, the DSS foster
care worker assigned to Daughter admitted Mother supported and visited
Children.  Additionally, the case worker believed Children were bonded with
Mother.  Daughter's foster care worker had not met Daughter's foster parents
but believed Daughter was bonded with them. Without explanation, DSS
recommended it was in Daughter's best interests to be separated from Son.  DSS
did not present any testimony from Son's foster care worker regarding how Son
was adjusting in his current foster care placement or Son's future prospects
for permanent placement.  Additionally, the guardian ad litem did not believe
TPR was in Children's best interests.  Moreover, in its order, the family court
did not provide any factual evidence in support of its finding TPR was in the
best interests of Children as required by Rule 26, SCRFC. 

Accordingly, we affirm the
family court's order as to its findings Daughter was harmed pursuant to section
63-7-20(4).  However, we reverse the family court's order as to its findings on
whether it is not reasonably likely Mother's home could be made safe within
twelve months and best interests.  We remand the matter in order for the family
court to make sufficient findings of fact as to whether it is not reasonably
likely Mother's home could be made safe within twelve months and best
interests.  The family court may order a hearing to further clarify the issues
surrounding whether Mother's home could be made safe, Children's current foster
care placements, Children's future prospects for permanent placement, and any
other relevant issues related to Children's best interests.    

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED
IN PART, AND REMANDED.

FEW, C.J., KONDUROS, J.,
and CURETON, A.J., concur.