Domestic Relations – Termination of Parental Rights – Inability to Care for the Child

Listen to this article

The family court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Father’s objection to testifying in the case in chief of the Department of Social Services (DSS).

We affirmed.

Father appealed a family court order terminating his parental rights to his minor child. On appeal, Father argued the family court violated his right to due process by compelling him to testify at the final hearing, and erred in terminating his parental rights on three statutory grounds.

During the combined removal and termination of parental rights (TPR) hearing, Father objected to being called to testify on due process grounds. We are unable to identify any authority suggesting this state has recognized the right to avoid testifying as falling under the ambit of due process. As to the statutory grounds for TPR, we held clear and convincing evidence showed Father failed to remedy the conditions that caused Child’s removal. This action began in February 2024, when Child nearly died after ingesting fentanyl. Throughout the case, Father remained incarcerated and, therefore, unable to care for Child. Accordingly, this statutory ground was met.

We held clear and convincing evidence also showed Father had a diagnosable condition that was unlikely to change within a reasonable time and made him unlikely to provide minimally acceptable care of Child. Father admitted to a decades-long history of drug use and stated he had twice sought substance abuse treatment “on [his] own accord,” which he failed to complete. Father asserted he had faced no problems with drugs or alcohol since he became incarcerated, and he believed he “[had his] drug problem under control.” He testified, however, that he had arranged to attend a 10-month rehabilitation program following his scheduled May 2025 release. Moreover, one of Mother’s witnesses, a bail bondsman who had known Mother and Father for at least six years, described witnessing Father’s “rollercoaster of sobriety.” She further testified she believed Father was using drugs at the time he went to prison. Based on Father’s admitted “drug problem,” his extensive history of drug use, and the lack of evidence showing an ability to maintain sobriety outside his incarceration, we find this ground was met.

Finally, we found TPR is in Child’s best interest. The guardian ad litem (GAL), who had served as the same role in the 2022 case, described Child as a “sweet” two-year-old who “adore[d] her foster family.” She testified Child’s foster family, with whom Child had also been placed in the 2022 case, wanted to adopt her. The GAL remained “absolutely” concerned about Father’s ability to maintain sobriety upon his release from prison and knew of no barriers to adoption for Child. Thus, based on Child’s need for permanency and the unlikelihood Father can provide a stable home for her in the foreseeable future, TPR is in Child’s best interest.

Affirmed.

South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Green (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-060-25, 7 pp.) (H. Bruce Williams, C.J.) Appealed from Greenville County Family Court (Rochelle Y. Conits, J.) Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of Union, for Appellant. Amanda Stiles, of South Carolina Department of Social Services, of Greenville, for Respondent. Megan Goodwin Burke, of Greenville, for the Guardian ad Litem. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished