Barber v. Smith, 2010-UP-157
Decision Date | 23 February 2010 |
Docket Number | 2010-UP-157 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Brian Barber, Appellant, v. Ella Smith and Sheila Eison, Respondents. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted February 1, 2010
Appeal From Union County Richard W. Chewning, III, Family Court Judge.
Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., of Greenville, for Appellant.
David Michael Collins, Jr., and N. Douglas Brannon, both of Spartanburg, for Respondent, Sheila Eison.
Joanne Hughes Burkett, of Spartanburg, for Guardian Ad Litem.
In this custody action, Brian Barber appeals the family court's award of custody of his minor child (Child) to Child's maternal aunt, arguing the family court erred in awarding custody to a nonparent without making a finding Barber was unfit. We remand [1] to the family court for a determination of Barber's fitness and for specific findings of fact.
In an appeal from the family court, an appellate court may correct errors of law and find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Semken v Semken, 379 S.C. 71, 75, 664 S.E.2d 493, 496 (Ct. App. 2008). This standard of review does not require the appellate court to ignore the fact that the family court judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony. Marquez v. Caudill, 376 S.C. 229, 239 656 S.E.2d 737, 742 (2008). In particular, an appellate court should be reluctant to substitute its own evaluation of the evidence on child custody matters for that of the family court. Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 10, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996).
In contemplating a change of custody, the family court must examine the effect the change would have upon the child:
Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45, 59-60, 682 S.E.2d 843, 850 (Ct. App. 2009) (internal citations and quotes omitted); see also Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75, 79-80, 386 S.E.2d 456, 458 (1989) ( ).
An appellate court reviewing a custody determination has authority to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Gandy v. Gandy 297 S.C. 411, 414, 377 S.E.2d 312, 314 (1989). However, this scope of review does not enable the appellate court to overlook the requirements...
To continue reading
Request your trial