Lee Carlton Walker v. Sylvia Ashley McAdams

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

Lee Carlton Walker, Appellant,

v.

Sylvia Ashley McAdams, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000542

Appeal From Charleston County
Michèle Patrão Forsythe, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-424
Submitted November 18, 2022 – Filed November 30, 2022

APPEAL DISMISSED

Gil Gatch, of Gil Gatch Law, of Summerville, for
Appellant.

Joseph Clay Hopkins, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Ervin Lindsay Blanks, of E. Lindsay Blanks, PA, of
North Charleston, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Lee Carlton Walker appeals temporary orders of the family
court, arguing (1) the orders are immediately appealable, (2) the family court's
order restricting him from publishing information related to the ongoing litigation
was overbroad and impermissibly infringed on his right to free speech, (3) the
family court lacked a sufficient factual basis to order him to remove from the
internet all materials relating to his minor child, (4) the family court exceeded its
jurisdiction by ordering him remove from the internet all materials related to his
minor child, (5) the family court lacked a sufficient factual basis to reallocate
responsibility for the fees owed to his minor child's therapist, (6) the family court
lacked a sufficient factual basis to require him to pay 75% of the fees owed to his
minor child's mental health counselor, (7) the family court lacked a sufficient
factual basis to reallocate responsibility for the fees owed to the attorney for his
minor child's guardian ad litem, (8) the family court violated his right to due
process by denying his motion for reinstatement of custody of his minor child
without a hearing, (9) the family court erred by denying his petition for
supersedeas of its February 22, 2021 order, and (10) the family court lacked a
sufficient factual basis to deny his motion to reinstate his custody of his minor
child.

Because the underlying orders on appeal are not immediately appealable, we
dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
Tillman v. Tillman, 420 S.C. 246, 248, 801 S.E.2d 757, 759 (Ct. App. 2017)
("Generally only final judgments are [immediately] appealable."); id. at 249, 801
S.E.2d at 759 ("Some exceptions to the final judgment rule are set forth in section
14-3-330 of the South Carolina Code (2017), which provides for the appealability
of certain interlocutory orders."); Terry v. Terry, 400 S.C. 453, 456, 734 S.E.2d
646, 648 (2012) ("A temporary order of the family court is without prejudice to the
rights of the parties."); id. at 456-57, 734 S.E.2d at 648 ("[Temporary] orders are,
by definition, temporary—they neither decide any issue with finality nor affect a
substantial right . . . .").

APPEAL DISMISSED. 1

KONDUROS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur

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