SCDSS v. Baker

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

South Carolina Department of Social Services,
Respondent,

v.

Felecia Martina Baker and Jim Dewayne Conyers,
Defendants,

Of whom Felecia Martina Baker is the Appellant.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000751

Appeal From Horry County
Jocelyn B. Cate, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-154
Submitted March 8, 2018 – Filed April 9, 2018

AFFIRMED

Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of
Union, for Appellant.

Ernest Joseph Jarrett, of Jenkinson Jarrett & Kellahan,
PA, and William Evan Reynolds, both of Kingstree, for
Respondent.
Ian Andrew Taylor, of Taylor Law Office, of Pawleys
Island, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Felicia Martina Baker (Mother) appeals the family court's order
terminating her parental rights to her minor children (Son and Daughter). On
appeal, Mother argues termination of parental rights (TPR) is not in the children's
best interest. We affirm.

On appeal from the family court, this court reviews factual and legal issues de
novo. Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011); Lewis
v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011). Although this court
reviews the family court's findings de novo, 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. Lewis,
392 S.C. at 385, 709 S.E.2d at 651-52.

The family court may order TPR upon finding a statutory ground for TPR is
satisfied and TPR is in the child's best interest. S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570
(Supp. 2017). "In a [TPR] case, the best interests of the children are the paramount
consideration." S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Smith, 343 S.C. 129, 133, 538 S.E.2d
285, 287 (Ct. App. 2000). "The interests of the child shall prevail if the child's
interest and the parental rights conflict." S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2620 (2010).
"Appellate courts must consider the child's perspective, and not the parent's, as the
primary concern when determining whether TPR is appropriate." S.C. Dep't of
Soc. Servs. v. Sarah W., 402 S.C. 324, 343, 741 S.E.2d 739, 749-50 (2013).

Viewed from the children's perspective, we find TPR is in their best interest.1
Mother has an extensive history with the Department of Social Services (DSS).
DSS first became involved with this family in 2006, when Son was approximately
five years old and Daughter was approximately three. That year, the family court

1
Mother does not appeal the statutory grounds for TPR, and we decline to address
them. See Ex parte Morris, 367 S.C. 56, 65, 624 S.E.2d 649, 653-54 (2006) ("This
unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirmance."); id. at 65, 624
S.E.2d at 654 (acknowledging "procedural rules are subservient to the court's duty
to zealously guard the rights of minors" but "declin[ing] to exercise [its] discretion
to avoid application of the procedural bar" (quoting Joiner ex rel. Rivas v. Rivas,
342 S.C. 102, 107, 536 S.E.2d 372, 374 (2000))).
found Mother physically neglected the children and ordered her to complete a
placement plan. However, that action ended in April 2007 with the family court
placing custody of the children with their grandparents, relieving DSS of providing
further services, and ordering "[t]here shall be no change in custody without DSS
being notified and made a party."

In 2014, DSS initiated a removal action for Son after learning he was living with
Mother. In 2015, DSS initiated a removal action for Daughter after learning her
grandparents could no longer care for her. The family court ordered a new
placement plan for Mother, and DSS made referrals for services. However,
Mother made little progress. Emily Blewitt, an employee at Shoreline, testified
about Mother's sporadic attendance in drug treatment. Mother was initially
assessed at Shoreline in November 2014, and she was discharged twice due to lack
of engagement and failure to attend. Mother's third assessment occurred in August
2016, approximately five months before the TPR hearing. According to Blewitt,
Mother had not made much progress, partially because she "continued to attend
sessions late or leave early." Blewitt stated Mother tested positive for drugs and
admitted to using marijuana in November 2016. Although Mother had attended
drug treatment off and on since 2014, she was only in "the beginning to mid stage"
of treatment, she had never been "stepped down" to a lower level of care, and she
refused to submit to drug screens in December 2016 and January 2017.

Compelling evidence shows Mother's behaviors and drug addiction are negatively
impacting the children. Christina Ricks, a foster care case manager with DSS,
testified Daughter's "behavior [was] a direct reflection of her contact with Mother."
Ricks also explained Mother did not consistently attend visitation and Daughter
had behavioral problems after Mother missed visits. Likewise, the Guardian ad
Litem acknowledged Daughter had a difficult time when Mother missed visitation.
Scott Grainger, who provided family counseling, testified Mother had "role
confusion" and "interact[ed] with the children more as an equal than as a
parent/child relationship." Grainger testified the children made adequate progress
in therapy but wanted resolution and closure. Jim Dewayne Conyers (Father) did
not believe Mother's contact with the children was positive because it interfered
with what he was "trying to instill in" the children; he explained, "It's just certain
things that she'll allow, that I wouldn't allow, so then I have to go back and correct
that." When asked whether Mother would support or counter his efforts with the
children, Father responded, "Honestly, I think she'll be against it."

Finally, the evidence showed the children's behaviors had improved. Grainger
testified Son had behavioral problems when he entered foster care; as a result, he
was placed in a group home with more structure. Son responded well to the
structure and had improved. Grainger stated Daughter was stable. Based on the
foregoing, we find compelling evidence shows Mother's behaviors are negatively
impacting the children, and Mother's history suggests she may interfere with
Father's efforts at providing stability. Thus, we find TPR is in the children's best
interest.

AFFIRMED.2

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.