Charleston Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. King
| Decision Date | 04 March 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2005-UP-155 |
| Parties | Charleston County Department of Social Services, Plaintiff, v. Pamela King, Kenneth King, Jr., and Cody King, a child, D/O/B- 03/24/97, Defendants, and John Roe and Mary Roe, Intervenors, Respondents, of whom Pamela King is Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
Heard January 12, 2005
Appeal From Charleston County Frances P. Segars-Andrews, Family Court Judge
Robert V. DeMarco, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Frampton Durban, Jr., Chief Counsel Charleston Cnty. DSS, of N. Charleston and R. Glenn Lister, Jr., of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.
Ellen Babb, of N. Charleston, and Ruth F. Buck, of Sullivans Island, for Guardian Ad Litem
Pamela King appeals the family court's termination of her parental rights to her son Cody. We reverse.
In October of 1999, Pamela, her husband Kenneth King, and their three children, Casey, Ashley, and Cody, were traveling through South Carolina in route from Pennsylvania to make a new home in Texas near Pamela's family. At the time Casey was age 9, Ashley was almost 5, and Cody was approximately two and a half. [1] On October 15, 1999, the children were taken into emergency protective custody by Charleston County Department of Social Services (DSS) after the parents were arrested for attempting to pass a fraudulent check at a Wal-Mart and what was identified as a crack pipe” was found in Pamela's purse.
In a March 20, 2000 order, the family court adopted a treatment plan agreed upon by DSS and the parents. The court required the children to remain in DSS custody until the parents successfully completed a placement plan. Among other things this plan required substance abuse counseling, parental counseling, and counseling addressing anger management and criminal domestic violence.
In February of 2000, Kenneth and Pamela moved to Hardeeville South Carolina. Pamela began working toward the completion of her treatment plan. She completed her parenting classes in September of 2000. In February of 2001, she completed a class on relationship issues sponsored by a family violence treatment center. During this time, Pamela paid the child support obligation for approximately six months before beginning to pay it only sporadically. Pamela testified that she paid the child support to the best of her ability.
In October of 2000, the foster care review board recommended termination of the parental rights of Kenneth and Pamela. Pamela testified that it was at this time she began using cocaine from October of 2000 until June of 2001 due to her despondency over losing her children and at Kenneth's prompting. She acknowledged that she continued using it until June of 2001. In April of 2001, the family court issued a permanence planning order adopting a plan for all three children of termination of parental rights and adoption. In the order, the court noted that there had been some compliance by Pamela but not enough to remedy the situation. It allowed Pamela to continue visitation with the children.
Pamela had left Kenneth in February of 2001 and moved to Smoaks South Carolina to live with her mother and stepfather. She explained, I did a lot of soul searching. I wasn't happy. I was missing my kids. I realized that I had a loser for a husband who was not helping me to get them back in any way.... I just decided to turn my life around. Things just fell into place after I left him.” In the time since she left Kenneth and moved to Smoaks, her life has greatly improved. She found stable employment and lives with her mother and stepfather. She testified she had not used drugs since June of 2001. In September of 2002, she completed a year-long substance abuse program through drug court. [2] In April of 2002, the guardian ad litem and foster care review board changed their recommendations from termination of parental rights to reunification. Importantly, DSS accepted those recommendations as to Cody's brother and sister and returned them to Pamela in November of 2002. Casey, one of the children returned to Pamela, is autistic.
While Pamela was working toward completion of her treatment plan the children were living in separate foster homes. Cody was eventually placed with the Shanklin family. He stayed with this foster family for approximately two years, but was removed sometime prior to September of 2001. While Cody was with the Shanklins, his pediatric endocrinologist, Dr. Steven Willi, diagnosed Cody as having psychosocial dwarfism or psychosocial failure to thrive. Dr. Willi explained this condition occurs when a child is not being met with the appropriate nurturing behaviors from some parent or parent surrogate. Mrs. Shanklin testified that when Cody was in their foster care, he initially would become sick after his visitation with Kenneth, Pamela, and his siblings, but this changed after Kenneth no longer participated in the visitations. After that point, Cody looked forward to going ” acted very lovingly” toward Pamela, and would play with his mother, siblings, and grandparents. Mrs. Shanklin also testified that during this time she made sure Cody understood that Pamela was his biological mother by placing a picture of his biological family near his bed and allowing him to have letters and cards from them. Cody was removed from the Shanklin household by DSS when Mr. and Mrs. Shanklin temporarily separated, despite Mrs. Shanklin's desire to continue taking care of him.
When Cody was removed from the Shanklin's foster care, he was temporarily placed in two households before being pre-adoptively placed with Kurtis Kendle and Gayle Kendall (hereinafter the Kendles [3]) in October of 2001. A pre-adoptive placement means the family is being recommended as an adoption home for Cody by DSS. Cody has by all accounts thrived in the Kendle household.
During the entire time Cody has been in foster care, Pamela has exercised every visitation offered her. Initially visitation was twice a month, but DSS cut the visitation in half. Thus, DSS limited Cody's visitations with his mother to one hour a month.
This action for termination of parental rights was filed in May of 2001. DSS originally sought the termination of Pamela and Kenneth's rights to all three children. The Kendles were joined as intervenors in October of 2002. At the hearing, DSS presented the testimony of two expert witnesses to demonstrate that it was in Cody's best interests to stay with the Kendles.
Dr. Elizabeth Ralston, a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and qualified as an expert in family reunification, testified that Cody does not identify Pamela as his natural mother or Casey and Ashley as his natural siblings. However, she testified that based on observation, Pamela is a nurturing and loving mother to her children. Dr. Ralston stated Cody is doing well with the Kendles, but admitted she is unsure if Cody has bonded with the Kendles or whether he is just employing a survival mechanism. Dr. Ralston also testified that Cody is comfortable with Pamela, his siblings, and his grandfather. Her opinion that Cody should remain with the Kendles was rooted in her belief that Cody is thriving with the Kendles and to remove him would be traumatic. However, she acknowledged that when Cody was older and learned that that he had a brother and sister who were returned to their mother when he was not may also be traumatic, but she stated she could not predict the impact such knowledge would have on Cody.
Dr. Charles Saylor, a forensic psychologist, testified Cody had resolved his earlier confusion at being placed with the Kendles. He also testified that while Cody knew neither the Shanklins nor the Kendles were his biological parents, he could not identify Pamela as his biological mother. However, Cody could identify Casey and Ashley as his siblings. Dr. Saylor found Cody was in a good home where he is well cared for by... parents who are very capable and very devoted to him.” He concluded it would be in Cody's best interest to be allowed to continue living with the Kendles and have closure.
On cross-examination, Dr. Saylor admitted his evaluation did not include the overarching question of whether it is in the best interest of Cody to stay with the Kendles or be reunited with Pamela but was limited to determining whether Cody [has] adjusted to life with the Kendles.” He also admitted that if Pamela could present a nurturing, caring, loving home that would be okay” for Cody. Finally, Dr. Saylor testified Pamela's restricted visitation of one hour a month was not enough to create a bond with Cody.
Ruth Buck, the guardian ad litem, testified that although she initially recommended termination of parental rights to the court in March of 2001 because she was dissatisfied with the parents' progress with their treatment plans, she changed her position to reunification with Pamela in April of 2002. She stated she changed her opinion because (1) Pamela was making progress, (2) Cody's brother stated he wanted to be returned to Pamela, and (3) Pamela no longer had contact with Kenneth. Buck testified that Pamela never missed a visit nor did the grandparents. And I continued to see an improvement in the children in their relationship with the mother on the visits over the time.” Importantly, she testified Pamela was a fit mother and Cody has a good relationship with his brother and sister. Most alarmingly Buck accused DSS of having reserved Cody for adoption because he was very adoptable. She testified that when she questioned Jacqueline Adams, a DSS adoption specialist, about the Kendles' pre-adoptive status, Adams responded, We don't get many blue eyed...
To continue reading
Request your trial