Coffey v. Webb

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

Michael David
Coffey, Appellant,

v.

Lisa A. Webb a/k/a Lisa Strid, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Honorable Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-024

Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed January
25, 2011

Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled March
1, 2011

AFFIRMED

Michael D. Coffey, of Gray Court, pro se.

James D. Calmes, III, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael
D. Coffey appeals the family court's denial of his motion to hold Lisa A. Webb in
contempt.  On appeal Coffey argues (1) the family court erred in finding he
failed to meet his burden of proof, (2) the family court abused its discretion
in considering the guardian ad litem's report and testimony, and (3) the family
court abused its discretion by requiring visitation with his two minor children
to resume through a therapist.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family
court erred by not finding Webb in contempt:  Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he
appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record
on Appeal.");  Harkins v. Greenville Cnty., 340 S.C. 606, 616, 533
S.E.2d 886, 891 (2000) (affirming the trial court on a particular issue because
the appellants failed to meet their burden of presenting the necessary
information in the record on appeal to decide that issue).

2. As to whether the family
court abused its discretion in considering the guardian ad litem's report and
testimony:  High v. High,  389 S.C. 226, 239, 697 S.E.2d 690,
696 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding determinations regarding the relevance of evidence are within the family court's discretion and "[a] family court's ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence
will only be reversed if it constitutes an abuse of discretion
amounting to an error of law").

3. As to whether the family
court abused its discretion by requiring visitation with his two minor children
to resume through a therapist: Nash v. Byrd,  298 S.C. 530, 536,
381 S.E.2d 913, 916 (Ct. App. 1989) ("The question of limiting
visitation rights is a matter addressed to the broad discretion of the trial
court. In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, the trial court's order
limiting visitation rights will not be disturbed on appeal.")  (citations
omitted).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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