South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Lewis v. Lewis Even though the defendant-father’s expert cited recent studies indicating that joint custody is ideal, our courts generally disfavor joint custody. Moreover, both parties’ experts agreed that a lack of hostility or controversy between the parties is the most important component – one that was missing in this case.

Tagged with: child custody

South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Nellie M. Although the family court did not consider the father’s conduct prior to his notification of the child’s removal from the mother’s custody, we find it is a relevant consideration.

Tagged with: family court

Young v. Young Where the family court made no reservation of jurisdiction in the parties’ divorce decree, and where the plaintiff-husband neither appealed nor moved the family court pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60, SCRCP, to modify the divorce decree, neither statute nor reservation of jurisdiction allowed the family court to modify the terms of the parties’ divorce decree.

Tagged with: Divorce

South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Evangelica H. The appellant-father appeals only two of the three bases found by the trial court for terminating his parental rights. The unchallenged ground – that the child was in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months – is sufficient to support the termination of appellant’s parental rights; moreover, it was supported by clear and convincing evidence since the child had been in foster care for 37 months by the time of the hearing.

Tagged with: Domestic Relations Parent & Child Termination of Parental Rights

Holmes v. Holmes When the plaintiff-husband moved to modify his alimony obligation, the family court failed to consider the factors required by S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(C), concentrating only on the percentage of the husband’s income devoted to alimony. After consideration of the statutory factors, we reduce the husband’s alimony obligation from $600 per month plus 20 percent of his bonus to $275 per month.

Tagged with: Domestic Relations

DiMarco v. DiMarco The defendant-father offered to go through the expenses for each of his rental properties, but the family court said that, if the expenses were included in the father’s 2006 tax return, there was no need to go through the expenses. Although the father’s 2006 tax return included all the expenses for each rental property and showed that the rental properties were operating at a loss, the family court found that the father earned $11,263 per year in rental income by subtracting mortgage interest, taxes and insurance from the father’s gross rental income. The court did not deduct expenses for cleaning and maintenance, legal fees, supplies, and association dues.

Tagged with: Domestic Relations Parent & Child Support

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl Where the respondent-father both (1) acknowledged his paternity through the pursuit of court proceedings as soon as he realized the baby girl had been put up for adoption and (2) established his paternity through DNA testing, the unwed father is a “parent” as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Tagged with: adoption Domestic Relations Parent & Child

Reyes v. Jeffcoat Where (1) from 2006 to September 2008, the parties’ children attended brick and mortar schools and participated in extracurricular activities in Lexington, S.C.; (2) despite staying in Venezuela for appreciable periods of time from September 2008 to September 2011, the children continued to travel in and out of Venezuela as tourists using their U.S. passports; and (3) neither the children nor the respondent-father stayed in Venezuela for more than 90 consecutive days...

Tagged with: Custody Domestic Relations Parent & Child

Argabright v. Argabright Where the defendant-mother’s boyfriend (John Doe) is a registered sex offender who sexually abused his own young daughters, the family court appropriately enjoined the mother from permitting any contact between Doe and the parties’ daughter until the daughter reaches the age of 18.

Tagged with: Domestic Relations Parent & Child Sex Offender

Buist v. Buist The family court did not identify all the parties’ marital property but instead selectively divided certain real and personal property without determining the fair market value of all the property. The family court also failed to determine the direct and indirect contributions of the parties to the acquisition of the marital property. The record does not indicate a value of the marital estate or the fairness of the overall apportionment.

Tagged with: Domestic Relations Equitable Distribution Parent & Child valuation