Blalock v. Blalock

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

Heather J. Blalock, Respondent,

v.

Michael Blalock, Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Anne G. Jones, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-509

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
November 28, 2011

AFFIRMED

H. Stanley Feldman, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Heather J. Blalock, pro se, of Charleston.

PER CURIAM:  Michael Blalock (Husband) appeals from the family court's divorce decree
awarding full custody of parties' minor children to Heather J. Blalock (Wife),
arguing the family court (1) abused its discretion in failing to consider Wife's
promiscuity when granting her primary custody of the children and (2) erred in denying
Husband's motion for a continuance.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the family court
abused its discretion in failing to consider Wife's promiscuity when granting
her primary custody of the children: Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414-15, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667
(2011) ("In appeals from the family court, this Court reviews factual and
legal issues de novo."); Paparella v. Paparella, 340 S.C.
186, 189, 531 S.E.2d 297, 299 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The paramount and
controlling factor in every custody dispute is the best interests of the
child.  Although this court may find facts in accordance with our own view of
the preponderance of the evidence, we are not required to ignore the fact that
the [family court, which] saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position
to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their
testimony.  In particular, an appellate court should be reluctant to substitute
its own evaluation of the evidence on child custody for that of the [family] court."
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Chastain v. Chastain, 381
S.C. 295, 302, 672 S.E.2d 108, 112 (Ct. App. 2009) ("A parent's
morality, while a proper consideration in custody disputes, is limited in its
force and effect to the relevance it has, either directly or indirectly, on the
welfare of the child.  Thus, conduct that is immoral must also be shown to be
detrimental to the welfare of a child before it is of legal significance in a custody
dispute." (citations omitted)).

2.  As to whether the family court
erred in denying Husband's motion for a continuance: Bridwell v. Bridwell, 279
S.C. 111, 112, 302 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1983) ("Motions for continuance
are discretionary with the [family court], and we will not disturb [its] ruling
on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); State v. Irick,
344 S.C. 460, 464, 545 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001) ("An abuse of
discretion arises from an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without
evidentiary support.");  State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 473, 613 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct. App. 2005)
("In order for an error to warrant reversal, the error must result
in prejudice to the appellant.")

AFFIRMED.

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

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