SCDSS v. Charlese B.

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.

Charlese B.,
Travis S., Roberta S., Defendants,

Of whom,

Charlese B.,

In the interest
of T.S., Minor Under the Age of 18 is, Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

Anne Gue Jones, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-262

Submitted February 8, 2011 – Filed June 7,
2011

AFFIRMED

D'Anne  Haydel, of Orangeburg, for
Appellant.

Patrick L. Wright, of Orangeburg, for
Respondent.

James B. Jackson, Jr, of Santee, for Guardian
Ad Litem.

Roberta S., of Orangeburg, for Defendant.

PER CURIAM:  Charlese B. (Mother) appeals the family court's denial
of sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, SCRCP, against the South Carolina Department
of Social Services (the Department).[1] 
Specifically, Mother argues the family court's ruling that the Department's
actions in removing Child from Mother was not improperly motivated still
permits the imposition of Rule 11, SCRCP, sanctions because a prior family
court judge held the Department lacked probable cause to take Child into
emergency protective custody. In addition, Mother also asserts the family court
erred in not considering her supplemental memorandum in regard to her Rule 11,
SCRCP, motion. 

In support of her argument, Mother
contends the Department's basis for probable cause in removing Child was
inaccurate.  The Department placed Child into emergency protective custody on the
mistaken belief that Child tested positive for cocaine at her birth in November
2008.  However, the Department later determined it was actually Mother's other
child, who was born ten months earlier in January 2008, who had tested positive
for cocaine.  As a result, Mother argues the Department's signature on the
Notice of Emergency Custody Actions violated the requirement of Rule 11 that good
grounds exist to remove Child because an investigation would have revealed
Child did not test positive for cocaine at birth.  See Rule 11, SCRCP
("The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him
that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it . . .
.").

Mother also contends the
family court erred in concluding a merits finding in favor of the Department
precludes Rule 11, SCRCP sanctions under Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd. P'ship,
334 S.C. 96, 512 S.E.2d 510 (Ct. App. 1998).

In deciding on Mother's Rule
11, SCRCP motion, the family court denied Mother's relief pursuant to the
Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act rather than pursuant to Rule 11,
SCRCP.  It was incumbent upon Mother to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion when
the family court's order was inconsistent with her requested relief for
sanctions under Rule 11, SCRCP.  Therefore, we affirm the family court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of the Department pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authority:  Bennett v. Rector,  389 S.C. 274, 284, 697 S.E.2d 715,
720 (Ct. App. 2010) ("When a party receives an order that grants
certain relief not previously contemplated or presented to the trial court, the
aggrieved party must move, pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to alter or amend the
judgment in order to preserve the issue for appeal.").

Because Mother's argument for
Rule 11, SCRCP, sanctions is not preserved for review, we need not address the
family court's denial of Mother's supplemental memorandum regarding her motion
for Rule 11, SCRCP, sanctions.  See Futch v. McAllister Towing
of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (stating
an appellate court need not address remaining issues when a decision on a prior
issue is dispositive).

Accordingly, the family
court's decision is

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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