Domestic Relations – Custody Determination – Relocation Factors

Listen to this article

As Father was more invested in the education and religious engagement of the children, while Mother drifted from her parental responsibilities, the Family Court properly awarded joint custody with primary physical placement to Father.

We affirmed.

On appeal in this domestic matter, Mother argued the family court erred in awarding Father primary placement based on its finding that Father had become the primary caretaker. We disagreed. We held the family court’s findings show it properly considered the relevant factors in making its custody determination. We further held the family court’s grant of primary placement to Father serves the best interest of the children. While we exercise a degree of deference to the family court’s discretion given its superior ability to evaluate witness credibility, our review of the record indicates Father was more invested in the education and religious engagement of the children, while Mother drifted from her parental responsibilities. Therefore, we affirmed the family court’s award of joint custody with primary physical placement to Father.

Mother next argued the family court failed to consider relocation factors when making its custody determination and that these factors weighed against relocation. We disagreed with Mother’s argument that the family court erred by failing to specifically consider the Latimer factors. Our law indicates that these factors, although instructive, are not required to be considered by the family court in a relocation determination. Nevertheless, we found the family court folded an analysis of several of these factors into its determination by considering the educational opportunities for the minor children in Virginia, Father’s motive and reason for the move, and whether the move would substantially improve the lives of the minor children by allowing them the “opportunity to thrive.” To the extent Mother argued the family court erred by allowing Father to relocate with the minor children, we held that under our de novo review, it is in the children’s best interest to relocate with Father to Virginia. Father received military orders to move to Virginia and has robust family support there. We found relocation to Virginia would substantially improve the quality of life for the children based on this available family support. Mother’s testimony indicated a limited familial presence in or near South Carolina. We also found the minor children will be served with educational, social, and extracurricular advantages in Virginia. Accordingly, we affirmed the family court on this issue.

Finally, Mother argued the family court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to Father for her motion to reconsider. We held the family court properly exercised its authority in awarding attorneys’ fees and there is sufficient evidence in the record to support both the family court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees and the amount of attorneys’ fees it awarded.

Affirmed.

Lacefield v. Lacefield (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-067-25, 10 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Beaufort County Family Court (Douglas L. Novak, J.) Mary Fran Quindlen and Jeffrey Scott Stephens, both of Quindlen Law Firm, P.A., of Beaufort, for Appellant. J. Michael Taylor, of Taylor/Potterfield, of Columbia; and Bridget Hillebrand Norton, of Beaufort, both for Respondent. Katherine Graham Ferguson, of Ferguson & Ferguson, of Beaufort, for the Guardian ad Litem. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished