Bragg v. Bragg

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

Kevin H. Bragg, Appellant,

v.

Morgan C. Bragg, Respondent.

Appeal From Laurens County

Joseph W. McGowan, III, Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-426 

Heard September 13, 2011 – Filed September
21, 2011

AFFIRMED

H. Michael Spivey, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Matthew P. Turner, of Laurens, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kevin
Bragg appeals the family court's order declining to grant him custody of his
child.  We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Davis v. Davis,
356 S.C. 132, 135, 588 S.E.2d 102, 103-04 (2003) (stating the controlling
considerations in child custody cases are the welfare of the children and what
is in their best interest); Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 11, 471 S.E.2d
154, 157 (1996) (providing that in making its determination on custody, the
family court should consider the character, fitness, attitude, and inclinations
on the part of each parent as they impact the children, as well as the
psychological, physical, environmental, spiritual, educational, medical,
family, emotional and recreational aspects of the children's lives); id. ("[A]ll the conflicting rules and presumptions should be weighed together
with all of the circumstances of the particular case, and all relevant factors
must be taken into consideration."); Latimer v. Farmer, 360 S.C.
375, 381, 602 S.E.2d 32, 35 (2004) ("Because the best interest of the
child is the overriding concern in all child custody matters, when a
non-custodial parent seeks a change in custody, the non-custodial parent must
establish the following: (1) there has been a substantial change in
circumstances affecting the welfare of the child and (2) a change in custody is
in the overall best interests of the child."); id. ("The
change of circumstances relied on for a change of custody must be such as would
substantially affect the interest and welfare of the child."); id. (holding
the parent seeking a change of custody bears the burden of establishing both of
the criteria); Chastain v. Chastain,
381 S.C. 295, 302, 672 S.E.2d 108, 111 (Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Woodall v.
Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 10, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996)) (declaring that although
our review is de novo, "an appellate court 'should be reluctant to
substitute its own evaluation of the evidence on child custody for that of the
[family] court.'").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.