S.K and I.K. v. Jonelle F.

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

S.K. and I.K.,
Husband and Wife, Respondents,

v.

Baby Boy F., a
minor under the age of fourteen years; Jonelle F., birth mother and Darren S.,
birth father, Defendants,

Of Whom Jonelle
F. is the Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

 Anne Gue Jones, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-300

Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 8,
2009

Revised June 10, 2009

AFFIRMED

Louis S. Moore, of Reidsville, for Appellant.

Susan K. Dunn, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Jonelle F. (Mother) appeals the family court's order
denying her motion to withdraw voluntary consent relinquishing her parental
rights to minor child (Child).  On appeal, Mother contends the family court
erred in (1) finding the consent was valid; (2) excusing the guardian ad
litem (GAL); and (3) failing to consider Child's best interest.  Mother further
contends South Carolina adoption statutes violate equal protection and public
policy.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether Mother's consent was valid:  S.C. Code Ann § 63-9-350 (2008) (explaining for
consent to be withdrawn the court must find that withdrawal is in the child's
best interest and that consent or relinquishment was not given voluntarily or
was obtained under duress or through coercion); McCann v. Doe, 377 S.C.
373, 383-84, 660 S.E.2d 500, 506 (2008) (stating the burden is on the
person seeking to revoke the consent to show the consent was obtained
involuntarily); McCann, 377 S.C. at 386, 660 S.E.2d at 507-08
(explaining duress is viewed with a subjective test, looking at the individual
characteristics of the person allegedly influenced, and duress does not occur
if the person has a reasonable alternative to succumbing and fails to avail
themselves of the alternative); Phillips v. Baker, 284 S.C. 134, 137,
325 S.E.2d 533, 535 (1985) (defining duress as "a condition of mind produced by improper
external pressure or influence that practically destroys the free agency of a
party and causes him to do an act or form a contract not of his own
volition").

2. 
As to whether the family court erred in excusing Child's GAL from the hearing
on the voluntariness of Mother's consent and in failing to address Child's best
interest: Kirkland v. Allcraft Steel Co., Inc., 329 S.C. 389, 392-93,
496 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1998) (holding a stipulation made by the parties in a
judicial proceeding is binding); State v. Johnson, 298 S.C. 496, 498,
381 S.E.2d 732, 733 (1989) (stating express consent to a ruling waives the
right to raise the issue on appeal).

3. 
As to whether South Carolina adoption statutes deprived Mother of equal
protection and violate public policy: Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("It is well-settled that an
issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised
to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate
review."); Charleston County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Jackson, 368
S.C. 87, 105, 627 S.E.2d 765, 775 (Ct. App. 2006) (explaining a father's
argument that termination of his parental rights violates his right to due
process is not preserved for this court's review because the issue was not
raised to or ruled upon by the family court).

AFFIRMED. 

HEARN, C.J., CURETON, A.J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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