South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Binding arbitration is not available to decide questions of child custody and support because the family court must always make the determination as to what is in the best interest of the child. The family court properly determined that it ...

Where DSS sought to remove three children from long-term foster care and place the children with a relative, and where the foster parents, in a private action, sought to terminate the biological parents’ rights and adopt the children, the family ...

Our grandparent visitation statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(33), requires the family court to find compelling circumstances before awarding grandparent visitation over the objection of a fit parent. As a result, the statute is constitutional. In this case, the mother’s ...

The husband’s pension plan had not yet vested when the trial court issued its equitable distribution order, and there was conflicting evidence as to the lump-sum value of the pension; consequently, the family court should have awarded the wife a ...

Even though some of the appellant/respondent-husband’s tax debt was properly classified as a marital debt, since the penalties and fees he owed were incurred due to his own negligence in not filing his tax returns on time and not for ...

Once the family court entered a final equitable distribution order—without reserving continuing jurisdiction—and in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the family court did not have jurisdiction to make substantive modifications to the equitable distribution of the marital estate. We reverse ...

Where the defendant-husband inherited property, sold the property, used the proceeds of the sale to build the parties’ marital home, but kept the property titled in his name alone, mere marital use of the property was not sufficient to show ...

Although our appellate courts have characterized joint custody as a unique and disfavored arrangement, the instant case presents exceptional circumstances in which both parents have positive relationships with the children and either party could serve as the custodial parent. Therefore, ...

It is true that—as the family court found—the plaintiff-husband did not present proof that the defendant-wife cohabited with a paramour for a continuous period of 90 days, which is a ground for terminating alimony under S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(B). ...

Plaintiff’s actions for divorce and equitable distribution require a determination that the parties are married; moreover, defendant’s primary defense to plaintiff’s claims is that the parties were not married. Accordingly, when—in this bifurcated proceeding—the family court weighed the evidence and ...