SCDSS v. Sarah 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.

Sarah W. and
Vaughn S., Defendants,

Of whom Sarah
W. is the Appellant.

In the
interest of two minor children under the age of 18.

Appeal From Saluda County

 Richard W. Chewning, III, Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-514

Heard October 19, 2011 – Filed November
29, 2011   

REVERSED

Franklin G. Shuler, Jr., of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Claude Robin Chandler, of Saluda, for
Respondent.

Ralph Nichols Riley, Jr., of West
Columbia, Guardian ad Litem. 

PER CURIAM: Sarah
W. (Mother) appeals the family court's order terminating her parental rights to
her two minor children.  Because the South Carolina Department of Social
Services (DSS) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
statutory ground for termination based on children being in foster care for
fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months was satisfied and termination was
in children's best interests, we reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the family court erred in finding
DSS proved by clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for terminating
Mother's parental rights existed because children had been in foster care for
fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months: S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (2010
& Supp. 2010) (providing the family court may order termination of parental
rights (TPR) upon finding one or more of eleven statutory grounds is satisfied
and also finding TPR is in the best interest of the child); S.C. Code Ann. §
63-7-2570(8) (2010) (providing the family court may order TPR upon a finding
that "[t]he child has been in foster care under the responsibility of the
State for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months"); S.C. Dep't of
Soc. Servs. v. Mother ex rel. Minor Child, 375 S.C. 276, 282-83, 651 S.E.2d
622, 625 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Before terminating parental rights, the alleged
grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.  On
appeal, this [c]ourt may review the record and make its own determination of
whether the termination grounds are supported by clear and convincing
evidence." (citations omitted)); Charleston Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
v. Marccuci, Op. No. 27049 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Oct. 3, 2011) (Shearouse
Adv. Sh. No. 35 at 14) (holding the family court erred in relying on the
fifteen of twenty-two months ground for TPR when "substantial evidence [existed]
that this [child] languished unduly in foster care not because of any actions,
or inactions, by [her parent], but because the delays generated and road blocks
erected in the removal action made it impossible for the parties to regain
legal custody of her prior to the expiration of the fifteen month period"); Loe v. Mother, Father, & Berkeley Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 382
S.C. 457, 471, 675 S.E.2d 807, 814 (Ct. App. 2009) (finding clear and convincing
evidence did not establish the fifteen of twenty-two months ground for TPR was
satisfied when the evidence indicated the delays in the processing of the case
were attributable to DSS). 

2.  As to whether the family court
erred in finding DSS met its burden of proving termination of Mother's parental
rights was in children's best interests: Charleston Cnty. Dep't of Soc.
Servs. v. Jackson, 368 S.C. 87, 96, 627 S.E.2d 765, 770 (Ct. App. 2006)
("[T]he child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing
erroneous termination of their natural relationship until the State proves
parental unfitness." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Loe, 382
S.C. at 471, 675 S.E.2d at 815 ("Even if the Foster Parents are perhaps
better situated than Mother to offer advantages to [children], . . . the
fundamental right of a fit parent to raise his or her child must be vigorously
protected.").   

REVERSED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.