SC Department of Social Services v. Ledford

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

South Carolina Department of Social Services,       
Respondent,

v.

Leann Ledford, Willie Fortner, Darrick Cooper, Hillman Atkinson and John
Doe,        Defendants,

and Miranda Fortner, DOB 4/26/92, Stephen Ledford, DOB 2/10/97, Bethany
Atkinson, DOB  6/1/98, of whom Leann Ledford and Willie Fortner are       
Appellants.

Appeal From Aiken County

Peter R. Nuessle, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-193

Submitted March 8, 2004- Filed March
22, 2004

AFFIRMED

J. Arthur Davison and Sonja R. Tate, both of Augusta; for
Appellants.

Dennis M. Gmerek, of Aiken; for Respondent.

Kristina Michelle Anderson, of Aiken; for Guardian Ad
Litem.

PER CURIAM:  Willie Fortner (Father) and
Leann Ledford (Mother) are the parents of the minor child, Miranda.  Mother
is also the mother of the minor children, Stephen and Bethany.  The South Carolina
Department of Social Services (SCDSS) filed an action to terminate the parental
rights of both Mother and Father to all three minor children.  The family court
judge subsequently terminated the parental rights of both parties.  Mother and
Father have each appealed this ruling.
[1]

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1578 (Supp. 2003)
(finding termination of parental rights statutes “must be liberally construed
in order to ensure prompt judicial procedures for freeing minor children from
the custody and control of their parents by terminating the parent-child relationship”);
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769-70, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1403, 71 L.
Ed. 2d 599, 617 (1982) (holding the grounds for termination of parental rights
must be proven by clear and convincing evidence); South Carolina Dep’t of
Soc. Servs. v. Headden, 354 S.C. 602, 608-09, 582 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2003)
(“Upon review, the appellate court may make its own finding from the record
as to whether clear and convincing evidence supports the termination.”); Hooper
v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 297, 513 S.E.2d 358, 367 (1999) (finding this
court is not required “to ignore the fact that the family court, who saw and
heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility
and assign comparative weight to their testimony”). 

Mother’s appeal:  S.C.
Code Ann. § 20-7-1572(2) (Supp. 2003) (A court may terminate parental rights
if a child “has been out of the home for a period of six months following the
adoption of a placement plan . . . and the parent has not remedied the conditions
which caused the removal.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572(4) (Supp. 2003) (A court
can also terminate parental rights if a child “has lived outside the home of
either parent for a period of six months, and during that time the parent has
willfully failed to support the child” by failing to make a “material contribution”
to the child’s care.); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572(8) (Supp. 2003) (Parental
rights may be terminated if a child was in foster care “for fifteen of the most
recent twenty-two months.”); South Carolina Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Broome,
307 S.C. 48, 53, 413 S.E.2d 835, 838 (1992) (“Conduct of the parent which evinces
a settled purpose to forego parental duties may fairly be characterized as ‘willful’
because it manifests a conscious indifference to the rights of the child to
receive support and consortium from the parent.”); Doe v. Baby Boy Roe,
353 S.C. 576, 581, 578 S.E.2d 733, 736 (Ct. App. 2003) (“[O]nce a child has
been in foster care for fifteen months, whether those months are consecutive
or within the last twenty-two months, the parental rights of that child’s parents
may be terminated upon a showing that termination is in the child’s best interests.”);
Boyer v. Boyer, 291 S.C. 183, 186, 352 S.E.2d 514, 516 (Ct. App. 1987)
(finding a request for support need not assume a particular form to satisfy
the requirements of section 1572(4)). 

Father’s appeal:  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572(7)
(Supp. 2003) (parental rights can be terminated if the family court finds the
child has been abandoned); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572(8) (Supp. 2003) (parental
rights may be terminated if a child was in foster care “for fifteen of the most
recent twenty-two months.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1578 (Supp. 2003) (“The interests
of the child shall prevail if the child’s interest and the parental rights conflict.”);
Hamby v. Hamby, 264 S.C. 614, 618, 216 S.E.2d 536, 538 (1975) (affirming
a finding of abandonment where Father voluntarily pursued a course of lawlessness
resulting in his imprisonment and inability to perform parental duties); Doe
v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 581, 578 S.E.2d 733, 736 (Ct. App. 2003)
(“[O]nce a child has been in foster care for fifteen months, whether those months
are consecutive or within the last twenty-two months, the parental rights of
that child’s parents may be terminated upon a showing that termination is in
the child’s best interests.”). 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, CJ., ANDERSON, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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