SCDSS v. Sarah F.

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 F.,
Anthony P., Jarvis F., Anthony F., John Doe, whose true identity is unknown,
and two Minor Children, Defendants,

Of whom Sarah F.
is the Appellant.

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

Appeal From Berkeley County

Jack A. Landis, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-275

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 2,
2012   

AFFIRMED

Lester S. Schwartz, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Wolfgang L. Kelly, of Moncks Corner, for
Respondent.

Sean F. Keefer, of Moncks Corner, for
Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Sarah
F. (Mother) appeals the family court's termination of her parental rights to two
of her minor children (the Children).  The family court found clear and
convincing evidence supported termination of Mother's parental rights on the
grounds that the Children were in foster care for fifteen of the last
twenty-two months, Mother failed to support the Children, Mother failed to
remedy the conditions that caused removal, and Mother has a diagnosable
condition that was unlikely to change in a reasonable time.  Mother argues the
family court erred in terminating her parental rights when the Department of
Social Services (DSS) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the
grounds for termination of parental rights (TPR) and that TPR was in the
Children's best interest.  We affirm.

The grounds for TPR must be
proven by clear and convincing evidence.  S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v.
Parker, 336 S.C. 248, 254, 519 S.E.2d 351, 354 (Ct. App. 1999).  "Upon
review, the appellate court may make its own finding from the record as to
whether clear and convincing evidence supports the termination [of parental
rights]."  S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Headden, 354 S.C. 602, 609,
582 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2003).  However, despite our broad scope of review, this
court is not required to disregard the findings of "the family court, who
saw and heard the witnesses, [and] was in a better position to evaluate their
credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony."  Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).  The family court may order TPR upon finding one or more of eleven
statutory grounds is met and TPR is in the child's best interests.  S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2011).  "[T]he
best interests of the children are the paramount consideration."  S.C.
Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Smith, 343 S.C. 129, 133, 538 S.E.2d 285, 287 (Ct.
App. 2000).  "The interests of the child shall
prevail if the child's interest and the parental rights conflict."  S.C.
Code Ann. § 63-7-2620 (2010).

Mother did provide
intermittent material support for the Children, but the record shows Mother did
not make any support contributions in the six-month period between March 2008
and October 2008 or the year between February 2009 and February 2010.  During
this time, Mother was employed and able to make some minimal contribution to
support the Children.  Moreover, an additional statutory ground for TPR was met
because the Children have been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent
twenty-two months.  The record contains significant testimony, especially from
the Children's guardian ad litem and DSS caseworker, TPR was in the Children's
best interest.  Furthermore, the Children are together in a pre-adoptive home
and the record shows they are thriving.  Accordingly, we agree TPR is in the
Children's best interests.  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.  S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2011).  Based on
the foregoing, we affirm the family court's order terminating Mother's parental
rights.

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.