Byrd v. Hawkins
Decision Date | 30 March 2016 |
Docket Number | 2016-UP-152 |
Parties | Austin M. Byrd, Appellant, v. Courtney Hawkins, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2014-001172 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted December 1, 2015
Appeal From Newberry County Joseph C. Smithdeal, Family Court Judge
Mindy Westbrook Zimmerman and Benjamin L. Shealy, of Zimmerman & Shealy, LLC, of Newberry, for Appellant.
Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Austin M. Byrd (Father) appeals the family court's order granting custody of his minor child (Child) to Courtney Hawkins (Mother) and giving Father standard visitation. Father argues the family court abused its discretion because its findings included facts that were not presented at trial and it relied on evidence that was neither testified to nor entered into evidence. We affirm.[1]
1. Father argues the family court erred when it found (1) he and Mother ended their relationship approximately one year after Child's birth; (2) the relationship between Mother and Father was rocky and communication broke down after their relationship ended; (3) Child was disrespectful when he returned from visiting Father; (4) Father admitted he had a casual relationship with his girlfriend, Kelly; and (5) Kelly refused to take a drug test. Father failed to challenge these findings in his motion to reconsider; thus, these issues are unpreserved. See Washington v. Washington, 308 S.C 549, 551, 419 S.E.2d 779, 781 (1992) ( ); see also Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ( ).
2. Father argues the family court erred when it (1) found Child resided primarily with Mother since May 2013; (2) found Father swore he would never pay child support; (3) found Father used his obligation to support Child as a club in an attempt to spite Mother and gain favor with Child; (4) found Father violated the parties' oral agreement in October 2012; (5) found Father would drag out the custody action as long as possible; (6) found Father's relationship with his parents was strained at best; (7) focused "heavily" on an explosive fight between Mother and Father; (8) found Mother to have a gentle demeanor; (9) placed emphasis on Mother's credibility; (10) found Father was known to belittle and intimidate Mother; and (11) found Father was less willing to compromise with Mother regarding travel and visitation. Father has failed to meet his burden of proving the family court erred in making these factual findings. See Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381 392, 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011) ( ); id. at 390, 709 S.E.2d at 654 (); Wilson v. Wilson, 285 S.C. 481, 483, 330 S.E.2d 303, 304 (1985) ("Although our scope of review allows us to find the facts in accordance with our view of the preponderance of the evidence, we give broad discretion to the family court judge who has observed the witnesses and is in a better position to judge their demeanor and veracity.").
3. Father argues the family court erred when it found Father had only four overnight visits per month with Child since the December 2012 temporary hearing when he actually had eight overnight visits. We agree this finding was erroneous however, we find this error harmless in light of the evidence presented during the hearing that demonstrates Mother has been Child's primary caretaker since December 2012 and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial