SCDSS v. Katrina P.

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.

Katrina P. and
William C. Defendants,

Of Whom Katrina
P. is the Appellant.

In the interests of D.C. and D.C., two
minor children under the age of 18.

Appeal From Barnwell County

C. David Sawyer, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-559

Heard September 17, 2008 – Filed October
9, 2008

AFFIRMED

Mitchell J. Williams, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Dennis M. Gmerek, of Aiken, for Respondent.

Angela W. Abstance, of Barnwell, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Katrina
P. (Mother) appeals from the family court’s order terminating her parental
rights (TPR) to two minor children.  Mother argues the family court erred in
finding TPR was in her children’s best interests.  We disagree.

1.  We
affirm the family court’s finding the children resided in foster care, under
the responsibility of the state, for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two
months.  See S.C. Code Ann. §
20-7-1572 (Supp. 2007)[1] (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); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572(8) (Supp. 2007) (explaining one
statutory ground for TPR is met when “[t]he child has been in foster care under
the responsibility of the State for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two
months”); Charleston County Dep’t of
Soc. Servs. v. Jackson, 368 S.C. 87,
101-02, 627 S.E.2d 765, 773 (Ct. App. 2006) (noting the purpose of this
statutory ground “is to ensure children do not languish in foster care when
termination of parental rights would be in their best interests”).  

2.  Furthermore, despite Mother’s arguments to
the contrary, we find the family court
did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence supported a finding that termination
of Mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of her children.  S.C.
Code Ann. § 20-7-1578 (Supp. 2007) (explaining if the parent’s and children’s
interests conflict, the children’s interests prevail); Charleston County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. King, 369 S.C. 96, 105, 631 S.E.2d 239, 244 (2006) (“When
reviewing the family court decision, appellate courts may make their own
conclusions of whether DSS proved by clear and convincing evidence that
parental rights should be terminated.”); Jackson, 368
S.C. at 95, 627 S.E.2d at 770 (stating despite the appellate court’s broad
scope of review, it should not necessarily disregard the findings of the family
court, which was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the
witnesses and to assign weight to their testimony); S.C. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs. v. Smith, 343 S.C. 129, 133, 538 S.E.2d 285, 287 (Ct. App. 2000)
(declaring the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration
in a TPR case).

Accordingly,
the family court order terminating Mother’s parental rights is  

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., and HUFF and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

[1] The General Assembly amended the Code of Laws of
South Carolina, effective June 16, 2008, to add Title 63, the South Carolina
Children’s Code, and to transfer all provisions of Title 20, Chapter 7 to Title
63.  See Act No. 361, 2008 S.C. Acts 3623 (stating “the transfer
and reorganization of the code provisions in this act are technical . . . and
are not intended to be substantive”).  Because Title 63 has not yet been
bound, all citations to the statute refer to Title 20.