Wright v. SCDSS

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

Gloria and
Johnnie Wright, Appellants,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Social Services, Respondent.

Appeal From Fair Hearing Committee

 Thomas J. Burkizer, Hearing Officer

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-316

Heard April 9, 2008 – Filed June 25, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Michele R. Krize, of Florence, for Appellants.

Delton W. Powers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Foster
parents Gloria and Johnnie Wright (collectively the Wrights) appeal the Fair
Hearing Committee’s (Committee) finding that the South Carolina Department of
Social Services (Department) did not violate the Wrights’ due process rights by
removing the Wrights’ foster child from their home.  We dismiss.   

LAW/ANALYSIS

The
Wrights argue the Committee erred in affirming the Department’s decision to
remove their foster child from their home because substantial evidence did not
support the Department’s decision.  We find we lack jurisdiction to hear this
matter.  Consequently, we dismiss.       

 “A
foster parent has the right to appeal . . . the removal of a foster child from
the foster home.”  27 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 114-140(A)(1)(c) (Supp. 2007).  The Department, and not the Administrative Law Court
(ALC), hears appeals from the removal of children from foster homes.  27 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 114-140(C)(1) (Supp. 2007).  After
an aggrieved party “has exhausted all administrative remedies available” within
the Department, he may seek judicial review of the decision.  S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-380(A) (Supp. 2007).  “Except as otherwise provided by law, an
appeal is to the court of appeals.”  § 1-23-380(A) (emphasis added).  “An
administrative law judge . . . shall preside over all
appeals from final decisions of contested cases pursuant to the Administrative
Procedures Act.”[1] 
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2007). 

The
Legislature’s 2006 changes to section 1-23-380(A) of the South Carolina Code
appear to give the Court of Appeals subject matter jurisdiction to hear this
appeal.  However, as the Department observed, section 1-23-600(D) provides an exception
to this rule.  Under that exception, the ALC has subject matter jurisdiction
over an appeal of a decision of the Department.  Therefore, we lack
jurisdiction to hear this appeal.[2] 

CONCLUSION

An
appeal from the Department’s decision in this matter should be to the ALC. 
Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

HEARN,
C.J., PIEPER, J., and CURETON, A.J., CONCUR. 

[1] However, the ALC does not have jurisdiction over
appeals from the Public Service Commission, the State Ethics Commission, the
Procurement Review Panel, the Workers’ Compensation Commission, or the
Employment Security Commission. 

[2] We note that since his removal from the Wrights’
home, Child has bonded with another foster parent whom the Department approved
to adopt Child.  By order dated June 2, 2008, the family court granted the
adoption.  Consequently, were we to review this matter on the merits, we would
nevertheless dismiss it as moot.  See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C.
557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) (appellate court will not consider moot
questions).