Culbertson v. Culbertson

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

Adam Ben
Culbertson, Appellant,

   v.

Melanie Lynn
Culbertson, Michael Wayne Emery, and a minor child, Defendants,

Of Whom Melanie
Lynn Culbertson is the Respondent.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

James F. Fraley, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-393

Submitted August 2, 2010 – Filed August
25, 2010

AFFIRMED

Andrew G. Goodson, of Fountain Inn, for Appellant.

Richard H. Rhodes and William H. Rhodes, both of Spartanburg, for
Respondent.

M. Todd Thigpen, of Spartanburg, Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM:  Adam Ben Culbertson (Father) appeals the
family court's order granting the parties joint custody of their twelve-year-old
minor child (Child) with primary placement of Child with Melanie Lynn
Culbertson (Mother).  Father argues the family court erred in designating a
primary custodian for Child and instead should have divided custody evenly
between Mother and Father through a "true" joint custody
arrangement.  We affirm.[1]

We
find a preponderance of the evidence supports the family court's granting of
joint custody with primary placement of Child with Mother.  See Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45, 57, 682 S.E.2d 843, 849 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In an
appeal from the family court, this court may correct errors of law and find
facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence."). 
The family court is in a better position to judge the demeanor of the parties,
and its decision is supported by specific findings of fact and conclusions of
law.  See id. ("We are not, however, required to ignore the
fact that the [family court] judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a
better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to
their testimony. In particular, an appellate court should be reluctant to
substitute its own evaluation of the evidence on child custody for that of the
family court.") (citations omitted).    

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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