Aldie v. Grossman
| Decision Date | 13 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2016-001505,Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-080 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Julie Aldie, Appellant, v. Gregory Hampton Grossman, Respondent. |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Appeal From Greenville County
Michael S. Holt, Family Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Brian P. Johnson, of The Law Office of Brian P. Johnson, LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Sidney Paul Mitchell, Jr., of Mitchell Ramseur, LLC, and J. Falkner Wilkes, both of Greenville, for Respondent.
Julie Aldie (Mother) appeals the family court's order finding there was a substantial change in circumstances that necessitated a change in the custody and placement of the parties' minor child (Child). Mother contends the family court erred by (1) making findings of fact that are without evidentiary support, (2) finding there was a substantial change in circumstances that necessitated a change in the custody and placement of Child, and (3) finding it was in Child's best interest to modify a previous order granting Mother expanded visitation with Child. We affirm.
Mother contends the family court's factual findings are not supported by the record. We disagree.
The family court found that Mother made five separate allegations ranging from physical abuse to sexual abuse against Father, all of which were unfounded. Mother contends this finding was based solely on Father's testimony because there is "no other analysis on how the [family] court found Mother was responsible." Mother maintains that there is no evidence regarding who made the reports. We disagree.
A review of the record indicates that Mother made several allegations against Father. First, Mother admitted that she made reports to both the Department of Social Services (DSS) and Specialized Alternatives for Families and Youth (SAFY). Mother stated that because she is a nurse she is a mandatory reporter for South Carolina and if she suspects or sees an injury she is mandated to report it, but stated that she was not the only one to report Father. Specifically, Mother admitted she reported that Father sexually abused Child, again, indicating that she was a "mandated reporter."1 Mother admitted to making a report that Father was "harming" Child because Father placed Child in a shirt that was too small. When Mother was questioned about whether she was the person to report the shirt incident to DSS or SAFY, Mother responded, "That was just one complaint of many." Second, Father testified that Mother made reports to SAFY alleging Father slapped Child in the face. Additionally, Father testified that he was investigated by SAFY concerning a report Mother made alleging that he hit Child in the face with a frisbee.2 Lastly, Father stated that there was a night when Child was "horse-playing" prior tohis bath time and received a carpet burn on his bottom. Due to Mother making two prior allegations of abuse against him, Father stated he emailed Mother to inform her of the incident so that she would not be alarmed. Subsequently, Father was again investigated by DSS for a report of child abuse concerning the carpet burn Child received while in his care. Thus, we find the record is replete with evidence indicating that Mother made several unfounded allegations against Father. See Ashburn v. Rogers, 420 S.C. 411, 416, 803 S.E.2d 469, 471 (Ct. App. 2017) ().
The family court found that Mother interfered with Child's ability to receive therapy. Specifically, the family court found that Mother "frustrated" the therapy that Father attempted to obtain for Child. Mother contends that the family court did not give weight to the testimony of the Child's current therapist, who testified the specific therapy that Father had obtained was not appropriate for Child's situation. We disagree.
At the modification hearing, Irene Shockley, a case manager with the South Carolina Autism Society, testified that she coordinated services for Child to receive behavioral therapy also known as Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). In an effort to curtail the cost of the therapy, Child applied for a "waiver," which would enable Child to receive funding for ABA therapy for three years. Shockley noted that thousands of children were on the waiting list for a waiver. Shortly thereafter, Child began receiving services from a provider named Hope Reach.
Bethanie Welborn, an employee at Hope Reach, testified that during one of Child's therapy sessions, Child attempted to hit one of the therapists. According to the therapists, this was a new behavior that Child had exhibited. As a response to Child's actions, the therapist "prompted" Child's hands down and told him "no hitting." Mother was observing the therapy session and disagreed with the way the therapist handled Child. Father was also present during the session and did not have a problem with the therapist's actions. Subsequently, Mother accused the therapist of abusing Child.
After this session, Welborn scheduled a meeting with both parents and the therapists to discuss Child's actions and how to move forward with Child's treatment plan. However, Mother sent an email stating that she did not want to attend the meeting. Mother expressed that she was "uncomfortable being in the same room with [Father] and that she was uncomfortable with [Child's] escalating problembehavior." As a result, Welborn decided to place Child's treatment on hold until she could alleviate Mother's concerns and get both parents on the same page. Welborn called Mother and Father to set up separate meetings; however, Mother indicated that she was uncomfortable meeting with her. Welborn successfully met with Father to discuss Child's treatment plan. However, Welborn ultimately decided that Hope Reach would no longer be able to offer services to Child because she believed the relationship with Mother was irreparable. Welborn explained that in order for Child to experience success in the program both parents needed to be on one accord. Welborn informed Father that Hope Reach would continue therapy with Child for a month on the days that Father had custody and requested that Father forward all communications with Hope Reach to Mother per their custody order. Additionally, Welborn testified that a majority of Child's sessions were spent addressing Mother's concerns. For example, during one of the sessions, Mother requested to be in the same room as Child. In an effort to accommodate Mother, Welborn tried to reserve a separate room for Child's session although this particular segment of his therapy would have occurred in a room with other children.
We find that Mother's uncooperative behavior interfered with Child receiving therapy that could have been beneficial to him. We find Mother's argument that Child's current therapist indicated ABA therapy was inappropriate is without merit. The fact that Child's current therapist stated the therapy would not be appropriate for Child's needs does not negate the fact that it was Mother's actions that caused the termination of Child's therapy. Furthermore, Father testified that Child has been terminated from four service providers and another provider threatened termination, all due to Mother's actions. Thus, the family court's finding is supported by the record. See Ashburn, 420 S.C. at 416, 803 S.E.2d at 471 ().
The family court found Mother was the primary reason the parties had difficulty co-parenting and that Mother was the least capable of making decisions concerning Child. Mother contends that the family court did not give weight to her examples demonstrating how Father made co-parenting difficult. We disagree.
The family court's order referenced several examples of how Mother's behavior created problems between the parties. For instance, witnesses testified during one of Child's therapy sessions, Mother caused a scene, crying and requesting to be placed in a separate room away from Father. The family court noted this in itsorder. Additionally, in the Arbitrated Order3, the parties were instructed to select a form of electronic communication, such as Family Wizard, but ultimately indicated the parties could mutually agree on what they used. Father testified that he covered the cost for both parties to use Family Wizard; however, Mother refused to use the program. Father attempted to use Google calendar on the parties' cellular phones; however, Mother refused to use that form of communication as well. Mother explained that she refused because she is not "tech savvy" and preferred email or text messaging. Once again the family court noted this in its order.
Additionally, we find that based upon our view of the evidence, Mother has exhibited an inability to effectively communicate and cooperate with Father in the co-parenting of Child. For example, when Father enrolled Child into extracurricular activities, there were instances when Mother refused to bring Child to his games, practices, or award ceremonies. When Father tried to obtain a passport for Child, Mother was uncooperative in signing the passport. Lastly, when Father was informed Child needed a computer, Father provided Child with an old work computer. However, Mother subsequently called Father's employer inquiring if the computer was stolen, which resulted in Father being interrogated by his supervisor. Ultimately, the issue was resolved and it was determined that the computer legally belonged to Fathe...
To continue reading
Request your trial