Domestic Relations – Moore Factors – Father Awarded Custody of Minor Child

Listen to this article

The family court did not err in its findings in favor of Father.

We affirmed the order of the family court.

This appeal arose from the family court’s order granting custody to Minor Child’s biological father. Appellants, Minor Child’s maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, argued the family court erred in finding the Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75, 79, 386 S.E.2d 456, 458 (1989) factors inapplicable based on Father’s fitness and failing to consider the best interests of Minor Child in awarding custody to Father. We disagreed.

In analyzing the first Moore factor, Father’s fitness, the family court acknowledged his employment, sufficient income, and suitable home. It found Appellants did not show continuous drug or alcohol use or how it detrimentally affected Minor Child. Father testified his job required him to take drug tests, and the court noted he had not lost his job due to failed drug or alcohol testing. Therefore, it found Appellants’ assertion of drug and alcohol abuse to be undermined. We agreed Appellants did not provide a clear and convincing rebuttal of Father’s unfitness. As to the second factor, the court found there was evidence to show Father has taken advantage of his visitation with Minor Child and provided for her and his older child from an unrelated relationship. As to the third factor, the court found Father never relinquished custody to Appellants because he never had custody to begin with. Further, the court found Father provided evidence to establish he tried to reclaim Minor Child. Father may have waited until the filing of this action to formally assert his right to custody; however, it was Mother who originally consented to Minor Child being sent to Appellants upon birth under the Department of Social Services’ safety plan. At that point in time, paternity had not yet been established, and Father was not listed on the birth certificate. Finally, as to the fourth factor, the court found Minor Child was attached to all the parties involved. However, it found Minor Child was always aware that Appellants were her grandparents, and Mother and Father were her parents.

Appellants asserted that the court “failed to consider the best interests of the child and ultimately issued a ruling that was against the weight of the evidence and decidedly not in the child’s best interests.” We disagreed because inherent in many findings of the order is the consideration of Minor Child’s best interests. We, therefore, found that the family court did not err in its findings in favor of Father.

Appellants argued the family court erred in finding Appellants were not de facto custodians to Minor Child. Appellants likewise argued the family court erred in finding Appellants were not the psychological parents of Minor Child. We disagreed. The family court found both parents to be involved in Minor Child’s life; therefore, Appellants could never reach psychological parent status. We found the court did not err when it found Appellants were not the psychological parents of Minor Child. The court’s order did not find clear and convincing evidence to support Appellants’ claim that Minor Child resided in their home for the statutorily required time period to become de facto custodians. The family court acknowledged that, even if it were to find clear and convincing evidence that Minor Child resided with Appellants for the statutorily required time period, that finding alone would not be enough to support an award of custody to Appellants because the court nevertheless found Father fit and it did not find compelling circumstances warranting an alternative determination. While Appellants may fit the statutory definition of a de facto custodian, that alone is insufficient to automatically warrant custody or visitation. Because we found Appellants failed to meet their burden of proving Father’s unfitness or compelling circumstances, satisfaction of the statutory requirements defining de facto custodians is not enough to warrant awarding Appellants custody. Accordingly, we affirmed the family court’s finding that Appellants were neither the psychological parents nor the de facto custodians warranting custody of Minor Child.

Appellants argued the family court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to Father. Consistent with our affirmance of the award of custody to Father, we also agreed the family court’s analysis of the requisite factors supported the attorneys’ fees award.

Affirmed.

Fields v. Fields (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-033-25, 7 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Dorchester County Family Court (Rosalyn Frierson-Smith, J.) Leslie Therese Sarji, of Sarji Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellants; Stephen L. Hudson, of Law Offices of Stephen L. Hudson, PC, of Columbia, for Respondent Barbaree Rapley; Ashli Fields, Self Represented; Sharon Lovette, Guardian ad Litem.