SCDSS v. Andy M.

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.

Melissa Angela M. and Andy
M.,

of whom Andy M. is Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

Peter R. Nuessle, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-033

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January 14, 2009

AFFIRMED

Rodney
Richey, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Deborah
Murdock, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Robert
A. Clark, of Greenville, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER
CURIAM: Andy M. (Father) appeals the
trial court’s denial of his continuance motion at a hearing on the merits where
the South Carolina Department of Social Services sought a finding of
educational neglect and substantial risk of physical neglect by Father with
regard to his son.  Father argues the trial court should have granted the
continuance because Father was appearing in Federal Bankruptcy Court the day of
the hearing, and “the bankruptcy court has priority over the family court.”  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266, 609 S.E.2d
592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding the granting of a motion for continuance is
within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent
a clear showing of an abuse of discretion); State v. McMillian, 349 S.C.
17, 21, 561 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2002) (holding reversals of refusals of
continuances are about as rare as the proverbial hens’ teeth).

AFFIRMED. [1]

HUFF, THOMAS,
and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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