SCDSS v. Davis

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.

Tinisha Riley, Anthony Davis, Robert Beauford, and
Jamesetta Riley-Reid, Defendants,

Of whom Anthony Davis is the Appellant.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001386

Appeal From Richland County
Gwendlyne Y. Jones, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-205
Submitted May 1, 2017 – Filed May 17, 2017

AFFIRMED

John Clark Phillips, Jr., of Law Office of John C.
Phillips, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Angela L. Kohel, of Richland County CASA, of
Columbia, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Anthony Davis appeals an order for removal from the family
court. Davis argues the family court erred in (1) finding he physically abused one
of Tinisha Riley (Mother's) two children, (2) ordering his name to be entered on
the South Carolina Central Registry of Abuse and Neglect (the Registry), and (3)
barring Davis from having any contact with the children.1 We affirm.2

On appeal from the family court, this court reviews factual and legal issues de
novo. Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011); see
also Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011). Although this
court reviews the family court's findings de novo, we are not required to ignore the
fact that the family court, which saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better
position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their
testimony. Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385, 709 S.E.2d at 651-52. The burden is upon the
appellant to convince this court the family court erred in its findings. Id. at 385,
709 S.E.2d at 652.

We find Mother's oldest child's (Child 2's) testimony that Davis gave Child 2 "rib
shots" constitutes a preponderance of evidence showing Davis harmed Child 2.
S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-20(6)(a) (Supp. 2016) ("'Child abuse or neglect' or 'harm'
occurs when the parent, guardian, or other person responsible for the child's
welfare: (a) inflicts . . . upon the child physical . . . injury or engages in
acts . . . which present a substantial risk of physical . . . injury to the child . . . .").
During the removal hearing, Child 2 testified Davis would give him "rib shots"—
hits that were "kind of where my ribs are and my stomach is." Child 2 stated the
rib shots "happen[ed] a lot" and they hurt and made him cry. We note the
credibility findings of the family court, which found Child 2 to be credible and
Davis to be not credible. See Lewis, 392 S.C. at 392, 709 S.E.2d at 655 ("[W]hile
retaining the authority to make our own findings of fact, we recognize the superior
position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations."). Based
on the foregoing we find the family court did not err in finding a preponderance of
the evidence showed Child 2 was abused, nor did it err in barring Davis from
having contact with the children. Accordingly, because we find Child 2 was
physically abused, we also find the family court did not err in ordering Davis's

1
Davis is not the children's father; Davis was Mother's paramour.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
name placed on the Registry. See S.C. Code Ann. 63-7-1940(A) (Supp. 2016)
(stating the family court "shall order, without possibility of waiver by the
department, that a person's name be entered in the Central Registry of Child Abuse
and Neglect if the court finds that there is a preponderance of evidence that the
person . . . physically abused the child").

AFFIRMED.

GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.