SCDSS v. Shawn W.

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.

Sallie W.,
Shawn W., Peter M., and John Doe, Defendants,

Of Whom Shawn
W. is the Appellant.

In the Interests of: K.W., S.W.,

and P.M., all minor children

under the age of 18.

Appeal From Marion County

A. E. "Gene" Morehead, III,
Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-270

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 6, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Dennis Hampton Smith, of Surfside Beach,
for Appellant.

Newton I. Howle, Jr., of Darlington, for
Respondent.

James Gladney McGee, III, of Florence, for
Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Shawn W. (Father) appeals the termination of parental rights (TPR) to his minor
children.  The family court terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to
section 63-7-2570(3) (willful failure to visit), (4) (willful failure to
support), and (8) (in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two
months) of the South Carolina Code (2010).  Additionally, the family court
found TPR was in children's best interests.  On appeal, Father argues the
family court erred in finding TPR was in children's best interests when an adoptive
home had not been identified.  We affirm.[1] 

The family court may order TPR upon a finding of one or more delineated grounds and a
finding that termination is in the best interest
of the child.  S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570.  The purpose of the TPR statutes are:

 [T]o establish
procedures for the reasonable and compassionate termination of parental rights
where children are abused, neglected, or abandoned in order to protect the
health and welfare of these children and make them eligible for adoption by
persons who will provide a suitable home environment and the love and care
necessary for a happy, healthful, and productive life.

S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2510 (2010).

Moreover, the TPR 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.  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); see also Joiner v. Rivas, 342
S.C. 102, 536 S.E.2d 372 (2000) (overruling prior cases calling for strict
construction of the TPR statutes).  Thus, the best interest of the child is the
paramount consideration.  Charleston County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Jackson,
368 S.C. 87, 102, 627 S.E.2d 765, 774 (Ct. App. 2006).

Father does not allege error
in the family court's finding statutory grounds for TPR existed.  Rather,
Father admitted he only visited children one time after removal and did not
financially support children.  Thus, the dispositive issue is whether terminating
Father's parental rights is in children's best interests.  Father's
behavior as it relates to the statutory grounds for termination can be
considered in determining best interests.  See Doe v. Roe, 386
S.C. 624, ___, 690 S.E.2d 573, 578 (2010) (explaining a parent's behavior "as
it relates to the statutory grounds for termination is appropriately reviewed
for purposes of the best interest analysis because such conduct evinces a
settled purpose to forego parental duties").  By Father's own admissions, he was not
involved with children "except in
very superficial ways and even then on an extremely sporadic basis." 
Further, Father admitted he did not support children and had only visited
children one time since their removal from their mother's home on May 19, 2005. 
Further, Department of Social Services foster care supervisor Martha Stackhouse
testified she believed TPR was in children's best interests.  Thus, the
termination of Father's parental rights does not conflict with the purpose of
the TPR statutes to make children eligible for adoption by someone "who
will provide a suitable home environment and the love and care necessary for a
happy, healthful, and productive life."  § 63-7-2510.

Accordingly, the family
court's order is

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

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