SCDSS v. Clyde

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina
Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Terrie C. and
Clyde L., Defendants, of whom Clyde L. is Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

 Barry W. Knobel, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-319

Submitted June 23, 2008 – Filed June 25,
2008

AFFIRMED

Beth M. Harbin, of Piedmont, for Appellant.

Dottie C. Ingram, of Anderson, for Respondent.

John M. O’Rourke, of Anderson; Tara S. Taggart, of Blythewood, for
Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: This
appeal arises from the termination of parental rights (TPR) of Clyde L.
(Father).  Father argues the family court erred in terminating his parental
rights because 1) DSS failed to prove a
statutory ground for removal enumerated in section 20-7-1572 of the South
Carolina Code (Supp. 2007) by clear and convincing evidence and 2) DSS failed
to prove termination of Father’s parental rights was in the Children’s best
interest. 

1.  We affirm the family
court’s finding Children’s presence in foster care for fifteen of the most
recent twenty-two months amounts to a statutory ground for TPR.  See S.C.
Code Ann. §20-7-1572(8) (Supp. 2007); Charleston County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Jackson, 368 S.C. 87, 101-02, 627 S.E.2d 765, 773-74
(Ct. App. 2006) (finding the statutory ground of fifteen out of twenty-two
months was met during appellant-father’s incarceration, despite the fact DSS
never contacted him or gave him an opportunity to suggest relatives with whom
his son might be placed); Jackson, 368 S.C. 87, 102, 627 S.E.2d 765, 773
(holding the appellate court is concerned with the child’s perspective and not
the parent’s when determining whether a statutory ground is met); S.C. Dep’t
of Soc. Servs. v. Sims, 359 S.C. 601, 608, 598 S.E.2d 303, 307 (Ct. App. 2004)
(“A finding pursuant to section 20-7-1572(8) alone is sufficient to support a
termination of parental rights.”). 

2.  Based on Children’s
mental and emotional progress, as well as their favorable living situation, we
agree with the Guardian ad Litem and family court and find TPR in Children’s
best interest.  Charleston County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. King,
369 S.C. 96, 105, 631 S.E.2d 239, 244 (2006) (“[W]hen the interest of the child
and the parental rights conflict, the interest of the child shall prevail.”).

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., THOMAS, J., and CURETON, A.J.

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