Fenderson v. Evans

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

Earnest S. Fenderson, Appellant,

v.

India C. Evans, Sharon DeHart, and Jim DeHart,
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001405

Appeal From Greenville County
Dana A. Morris, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-370
Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed November 27, 2019

AFFIRMED

Nathalie M. Morgan, of Nathalie M. Morgan, LLC, and
J. Falkner Wilkes, both of Greenville, for Appellant.

Shannon Matthews Chandler, of Law Office of Shannon
D. Matthews, LLC, of Columbia, and Rebecca Brown
West, of Harling & West, LLC, of Lexington, for
Respondents Sharon DeHart and Jim DeHart.

Brian P. Johnson, of The Law Office of Brian P.
Johnson, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent India C.
Evans.
PER CURIAM: Earnest S. Fenderson (Father) appeals the family court's order
denying him custody of his minor child (Child) and granting custody of Child to
great-grandparents of Child, Sharon DeHart and Jim DeHart. Father contends the
evidence of his unfitness on which the family court relied was too remote in time
and the weight of the evidence supported awarding him custody. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Lewis v. Lewis,
392 S.C. 381, 384, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court,
the appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its view of the
preponderance of the evidence. However, this broad scope of review does not
require this [c]ourt to disregard the findings of the family court." (quoting Eason v.
Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 479, 682 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009))); Baker v. Wolfe, 333 S.C.
605, 611, 510 S.E.2d 726, 729 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Particularly whe[n] evidence is
disputed, we may adhere to the findings of the trial judge, who saw and heard the
witnesses and was in a superior position to judge their credibility. We should be
reluctant to substitute our own evaluation of the evidence on child custody for that
of the trial court." (quoting Morehouse v. Morehouse, 317 S.C. 222, 226, 452
S.E.2d 632, 634 (Ct. App. 1994))); Altman v. Griffith, 372 S.C. 388, 398, 642
S.E.2d 619, 624 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The paramount and controlling factor in every
custody dispute is the best interests of the children." (quoting Nasser-Moghaddassi
v. Moghaddassi, 364 S.C. 182, 191, 612 S.E.2d 707, 711 (Ct. App. 2005))); id. at
403, 642 S.E.2d at 627 ("There is no single factor that controls in a custody
dispute, for the analysis is necessarily a fact-driven inquiry covering the totality of
the circumstances."); Urban v. Kerscher, 423 S.C. 615, 625, 817 S.E.2d 130, 135
(Ct. App. 2018) ("'The parent must prove that he [or she] is a fit parent, able to
properly care for the child and provide a good home.' In determining the natural
parent's fitness, courts consider the quality of the home the natural parent can
provide as well as the parent's employment stability." (quoting Moore v. Moore,
300 S.C. 75, 79, 386 S.E.2d 456, 458 (1989))); Baker, 333 S.C. at 611, 510 S.E.2d
at 730 ("While there is a presumption in favor of awarding custody to a natural
parent over a third party, that presumption applies only if the parent is found to be
fit.").

AFFIRMED.1

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

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