Aunt and Uncle v. Melvin M.

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

Aunt and Uncle, Respondents,

v.

Addie W., Charles
L., and Melvin M., Defendants,

of whom Melvin
M. is the Appellant.

In
the interest of a minor child under the age of fourteen.

Appeal From Kershaw County

 Roger E. Henderson, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-169

Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed April 27,
2009

AFFIRMED

Grady G Hart, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant.

James B Richardson, Jr., and John B. Allen, Jr., both of Columbia,
for Respondents.

Moultrie D Roberts, of Columbia, Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Melvin M. (Father) appeals from the
family court's order granting Aunt and Uncle's petition to adopt his minor
Child.  Father argues the family court erred in finding his consent to Child's
adoption was not required and the court erred in terminating his parental
rights.  We disagree.

1.  We affirm the family
court's finding that Father's consent to Child's adoption was not necessary.  See South Carolina Code Ann. § 63-9-310(A)(4) (Supp. 2008) (stating when a child is
more than six months old at the time the child is placed with prospective
adoptive parents, the consent of the child's biological father is not required
for child's adoption unless the father "has maintained substantial and
continuous or repeated contact with the child"); Parag v. Baby Boy
Lovin, 333 S.C. 221, 227-28, 508 S.E.2d 590, 593 (Ct. App. 1998) ("While
the unwed father possesses an opportunity to develop a relationship with his
offspring, this opportunity is of limited duration as a constitutionally
significant interest because of the child's need for early permanence and
stability in parental relationships.").

2.  Furthermore, we affirm the
family court's finding clear and convincing evidence demonstrated Child lived
outside Father's home for six months, and during that time, Father willfully
failed to visit or support Child, pursuant to South Carolina Code Ann. sections
63-7-2570(3)-(4) (Supp. 2008).  We additionally affirm the family court's
finding that termination of Father's parental rights is in Child's best
interest.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2008) (stating the
family court may order TPR upon finding one or more of eleven statutory grounds
is satisfied and also finding TPR is in the best interest of the child).   

Accordingly, the family
court order terminating Father's parental rights and granting Aunt and Uncle's
petition to adopt Child is

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., KONDUROS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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