SCDSS v. Zermina 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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina
Department of Social Services, Respondent,

 

   v.

Zermina P.,
Michael P., and Eloise P., Defendants,

Of Whom Eloise
P. is the Appellant.

In the interest of one minor child under the age of 18.

Appeal From Chesterfield County

Roger E. Henderson, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-240

Submitted March 1, 2010 – Filed April 14,
2010

AFFIRMED

Rowland P. Alston, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Elizabeth B. York, of Chesterfield, for Respondent.

Linda Amason, of Columbia, Guardian Ad Litem for Eloise P.

PER CURIAM:  Eloise P. (Grandmother) appeals from the
family court's order denying her Rule 59, SCRCP motion to alter/amend the
judgment and motion for rehearing of the family court's January 18, 2008 permanency
planning order.  We affirm.[1]

On
appeal, Grandmother contends: (1) the
evidence did not support the family court's finding that reunification with her
was no longer a viable permanent plan for Child; and (2) the family court erred
in denying her motion for rehearing because Child's guardian ad litem (GAL) did
not perform her duties as mandated by the statutory and common law.  We
disagree. 

"In appeals
from the family court, the appellate court has the authority to find the facts
in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence."  Ex
parte Morris, 367 S.C. 56, 61, 624 S.E.2d 649, 652 (2006).  "This
broad scope of review does not, however, require the appellate court to
disregard the findings of the family court."  Id.  "This
degree of deference is especially true in cases involving the welfare and best
interests of a minor child."  Id. at 62, 624 S.E.2d at 652.       

1.  Regarding
Grandmother's argument for reunification with Child, we find the family court
correctly denied Grandmother's Rule 59, SCRCP motion to alter/amend the
judgment because a preponderance of the evidence supports the family court's
finding that reunification with Grandmother was not a viable permanent plan for
Child.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700(C) (2008) ("If the [family] court
approves a plan that is not reunification with the parents, custody or
guardianship with a fit and willing relative, or termination of parental
rights, the [family] court must find compelling reasons for approval of the
plan and that the plan is in the child's best interests.").  Here,
compelling reasons supported the family court's approval of the permanent plan
to terminate reunification services for Grandmother and proceed with
termination of Mother and Father's parental rights (TPR).  Grandmother is not
able to care for Child at the current time.  Terminating reunification services
and proceeding with TPR is also in the Child's best interest.  No viable family
members are able to care for Child.  In comparison, Child is thriving in the
care of her current foster care family, and the foster care parents have
indicated a willingness to adopt Child.    

2.  Regarding
Grandmother's argument that Child's GAL did not perform her duties as mandated
by the statutory and common law, we find the family court acted within its
discretion in denying Grandmother's Rule 59, SCRCP, motion for rehearing. 
Sufficient evidence in the record supports the family court's ruling on the
Rule 59 motion based on the best interests of Child.  Additionally, this issue
is not preserved for our review because Grandmother raised this issue for the
first time in her Rule 59 motion.  See Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C.
388, 399, 608 S.E.2d 849, 854 (2005) (holding an issue raised for the first
time in a Rule 59 motion is not preserved for appellate review); S.C. Dep't
of Soc. Servs. v. Basnight, 346 S.C. 241, 252, 551 S.E.2d 274, 280 (Ct.
App. 2001) (holding issues not raised to or ruled upon by the family court
should not be considered by the appellate court for review).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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