Domestic Relations – Primary Custody – Best Interest of the Children – Rehabilitative Alimony – Length of Alimony Term

Listen to this article

The family court’s grant of primary custody to Mother serves the best interest of the children but the family court erred in setting the amount of rehabilitative alimony.

We affirmed in part and reversed in part.

In this domestic matter, Father appealed an order of the family court, arguing the family court erred in awarding Mother primary custody of the parties’ children and awarding Mother alimony. Father argued the family court erred in awarding primary custody of the children to Mother. Specifically, he contended the family court inaccurately assessed Mother’s fitness and overvalued the primary caretaker factor because he contributed substantially to the children’s care. Additionally, Father averred the family court assigned little weight to Mother’s shortcomings as a parent and her attempts at alienating the two oldest children.

We held the family court’s grant of primary custody to Mother serves the best interest of the children. Father asserted the family court inaccurately assessed Mother’s fitness and overvalued the primary caretaker factor; we disagreed. Our review of the record indicates Mother is more attuned to the children’s emotional needs and disciplines the children more effectively.

Father’s argument that the family court should have afforded more weight to Mother’s attempts at alienating the children and Mother’s own shortcomings as a parent failed to persuade us that Mother should not be afforded primary custody. Accordingly, we affirmed the family court’s award of primary custody to Mother.

Father next argued the family court’s grant of Mother’s request to relocate to Louisiana is not in the best interest of the children. We disagreed. We held the family court did not err in permitting Mother to relocate to New Orleans and that relocation served the best interest of the children.

Finally, Father contended the family court erred in setting the amount of rehabilitative alimony and the length of the alimony term. We agreed. We reversed the family court’s award of rehabilitative alimony to Mother, finding this matter involves the rare instance when the former dependent spouse, Mother, has already become sufficiently self-supporting prior to the end of the case. Therefore, it would be inequitable to require Father to pay rehabilitative alimony.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Gandy v. Gandy (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-015-24, 13 pp.) (H. Bruce Williams, J.) Appealed from Horry County Family Court (Fizzle H. McEachin, J.) Carolyn R. Hills and Jennifer Darrow Hills, both of Hills & Hills, PC, of Myrtle Beach; and Rebecca Brown West, of Harling & West, LLC, of Lexington, all for appellant; George M. Hearn, Jr. and Kathleen Wrenn Hearn, both of Hearn & Hearn, PA, of Conway; and Marie-Louise Ramsdale, of Ramsdale Law Firm, of Mount Pleasant, all for respondent; Russell W. Hall, III, of The Law Office of Russell W. Hall III, of Myrtle Beach, as the Guardian ad Litem for appellant. South Carolina Court of Appeals