Boykin v. Boykin, 1178
| Decision Date | 16 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 1178,1178 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Hugh Leonard BOYKIN, Appellant, v. Kimberly Jean Richburg BOYKIN, Respondent. . Heard |
Allen C. Pate, Florence, for appellant.
John O. McDougall, Sumter, for respondent.
Hugh Leonard Boykin (the father) and Kimberly Jean Richburg Boykin (the mother) were divorced on the grounds of the mother's adultery by decree dated April 12, 1985. The parties have one child, a daughter named Amanda, who was born October 24, 1980; the primary custody of Amanda was, by consent, awarded the mother by the divorce decree. By petition dated April 3, 1986, the father sought a change of custody, which was denied by the appealed order. We reverse and remand.
We first address the contention by the mother that the father's appeal should be dismissed because his exceptions do not comply with Rule 4, Section 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. In the last analysis, this Court is concerned with the substance of an appeal, not the technical differences in the issues raised by the exceptions; this despite the general rule that this Court will not reverse a judgment of the circuit court, even if it is erroneous, on a ground not raised by a properly framed exception. Bartles v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 448, 319 S.E.2d 707 (Ct.App.1984). We, therefore, reject this contention of the mother.
The dispositive issue of this appeal is whether the preponderance of the evidence of record is such that it requires under applicable law a change of custody of the minor child of the parties. We hold that it does.
In change of custody actions, the moving party has the burden of proving (1) a change of conditions occurring subsequent to the divorce and (2) that the change of condition substantially affects the interest and welfare of the child. Skinner v. King, 272 S.C. 520, 252 S.E.2d 891 (1979). A change of circumstances justifying a change in the custody of the child simply means that sufficient facts have been shown to warrant the conclusion that the best interest of the child will be served by the change. Id.
This Court and our Supreme Court have often held that while a parent's morality is a proper factor for consideration in a child custody case, it is limited in its force to what relevance it has, either directly or indirectly, to the welfare of the child. In Stroman v. Williams, 291 S.C. 376, 353 S.E.2d 704 (Ct.App.1987), and other cases addressing this point, our appellate courts have considered a single sexual affair involving the custodial parent and its effect on the child. Our courts have yet to address a situation involving such flagrant promiscuity as is presented by this case.
In applying the above legal principles to the facts of record before us, we hold that the trial judge erred in allowing the mother to retain custody of Amanda. We briefly review the salient facts.
The mother, shortly before the divorce, took a job in which she works from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight. Because of her workshift, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. Pieper
...the child and establishes “a watershed in the court's quest to protect the best interests of a minor child.” Boykin v. Boykin, 296 S.C. 100, 102, 370 S.E.2d 884, 886 (Ct.App.1988). Here, Mother asserts Father allowed his ex-girlfriend and the mother of his fifth child to stay overnight at h......
-
Chastain v. Chastain
...was if the court found she engaged in flagrant promiscuity. Wife alleges her conduct was not analogous to the conduct of the mother in Boykin v. Boykin, and therefore, the trial court committed an error of law in finding her conduct rose to the level of flagrant promiscuity. 296 S.C. 100, 3......
- Chanko v. Chanko
- Roberts v. Roberts