SCDSS v. Frederick V.

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.

Frederick V.,
Jennifer V. and Teresa "Teri" D., Defendants,

Of whom,
Frederick V. and Jennifer V. are the, Appellants,

In the interest
of three minors under the age of 18.

Appeal From Darlington County

Jamie Lee Murdock, Jr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-467 

Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October
21, 2011

#2010167966

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART, AND
REVERSED IN PART

Aimee Jendrzejewski Zmroczek, of
Lexington, Martin S. Driggers, Jr., of Hartsville, and S. Porter Stewart, II,
of Florence, for Appellants.

Elizabeth Biggerstaff York, of Hartsville,
for Respondent.

Beatrice B. Curtis, of Darlington, and
Robbie Forrester Gardner, III, of Hartsville, for Guardians Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM:  In this action from the family court,
Frederick V. (Father) and Jennifer V. (Mother) appeal the family court's order
of removal of their three minor children (collectively Children), arguing the
family court erred in: (1) finding the children were abused and neglected; (2)
approving Mother and Father's treatment plan; and (3) placing Mother and Father
on the Department of Social Services (DSS) Central Registry of Child Abuse and
Neglect (Registry).

1. As to whether the
family court erred in finding the children were abused and neglected, after reviewing
the record de novo, we hold there is convincing evidence to affirm the family
court's findings.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-20(4)(a) (2010) (stating
"child abuse or neglect" or "harm" occurs when the parent,
guardian, or other person responsible for the child's welfare inflicts or
allows to be inflicted upon the child physical or mental injury or engages in
acts or omissions which present a substantial risk of physical or mental injury
to the child, including injuries sustained as a result of excessive corporal
punishment, but excluding corporal punishment or physical discipline which: 
(1) is administered by a parent or person in loco parentis; (2) is perpetrated
for the sole purpose of restraining or correcting the child; (3) is reasonable
in manner and moderate in degree; (4) has not brought about permanent or
lasting damage to the child; and (5) is not reckless or grossly negligent
behavior by the parents); Simmons v.
Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414-15, 709
S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) (holding that "[i]n appeals from the family court,
this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo"); Lewis v. Lewis,
392 S.C. 381, 392, 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) (stating this court has the
authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of
the evidence).

2. As to whether the family court
erred in approving Mother and Father's treatment plan, we find this issue is
moot; thus, it is dismissed.  See Seabrook v. Knox, 369 S.C. 191,
197, 631 S.E.2d 907, 910 (2006) (stating a moot case exists where a judgment
rendered by the court will have "no practical legal effect upon an
existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of
effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court").

3. As to whether the
family court erred in placing Mother and Father on the DSS Registry, we find
there is no evidence in the record showing the family court's ruling complies
with the relevant statutory law.  Accordingly, we reverse.  See S.C.
Code Ann. § 63-7-1940 (2010)(stating
if the only form of physical abuse found by the court is excessive corporal
punishment, the court may order that person's name be entered in the DSS
Registry if the court finds by a preponderance of evidence that the person
abused or neglected the child in any manner, including the use of excessive
corporal punishment, and the nature and circumstances of the abuse
indicate that the person would present a significant risk of committing
physical or sexual abuse or willful or reckless neglect if the person were in a
position or setting outside of the person's home that involves care of or
substantial contact with children); Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412,
414-15, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) (holding that "[i]n appeals from the
family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo").

AFFIRMED IN
PART, DISMISSED IN PART, AND REVERSED IN PART.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.