SCDSS v. Ruth 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.

Ruth W. and
Ronald L., Defendants,

Of Whom Ronald
L. is the Appellant.

In the interest of three minor children under the age of 18.

Appeal From Marion County

Timothy H. Pogue, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-134

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 5,
2011   

AFFIRMED

A. Preston Brittain, of Myrtle
Beach, for Appellant.

Newton I. Howle, Jr., of Darlington, for
Respondent.

Stuart W. Snow, of Florence, for Guardian
ad Litem.

PER CURIAM:  Ronald
L. (Father) appeals from the family court's order of intervention placing him
on the central registry of child abuse and neglect and requiring supervised
visitation with his child.  Father argues the family court erred in failing to
allow testimony from a pastor based on the priest-penitent privilege.  We affirm.[1]

This issue is unpreserved for
appellate review because Father did not proffer the testimony of the pastor at
the intervention hearing as to the content of the pastor's conversations
between the pastor, Father, and Ruth W. (Mother), nor is it apparent from the
record on appeal what the pastor would have testified to if the family court
found the pastor's testimony admissible.  See State v. Santiago, 370 S.C. 153, 163, 634 S.E.2d 23, 29 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[A] proffer of
testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly
excluded by the trial judge, and an appellate court will not consider error
alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows
fairly what the excluded testimony would have been.") (emphasis added); TNS
Mills, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 331 S.C. 611, 628, 503 S.E.2d 471,
480 (1998) (holding where no proffer of excluded testimony is made, the issue
is not preserved for appellate review because the court is unable to determine
whether the appellant was prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to admit the
testimony into evidence).  Additionally, "[a]n error not shown to be
prejudicial does not constitute grounds for reversal."  Davis v. Davis,
372 S.C. 64, 87, 641 S.E.2d 446, 458 (Ct. App. 2006).  Here, this court cannot
determine whether any prejudice to Father occurred because although Father included
the testimony regarding the priest-penitent privilege in the record on appeal,
he did not provide any of the relevant testimony regarding the abuse
allegations from any witnesses at the hearing.  See Germain v. Nichol,
278 S.C. 508, 509, 299 S.E.2d 335, 335 (1983) (holding the appealing party has
the burden of providing a sufficient record upon which the court can make its
decision).  Accordingly, we affirm the family court's order of intervention.

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS and
KONDUROS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. 

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