Department of Social Svcs. v. Laura D., No. 4634.

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation688 S.E.2d 130,386 S.C. 382
PartiesDEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent, v. LAURA D. and Jerome C., Defendants, Of Whom Laura D. is the Appellant. In the Interests of Carmen C., a minor child under the age of 18.
Docket NumberNo. 4634.
Decision Date03 December 2009
688 S.E.2d 130
386 S.C. 382
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent,
v.
LAURA D. and Jerome C., Defendants,
Of Whom Laura D. is the Appellant.
In the Interests of Carmen C., a minor child under the age of 18.
No. 4634.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Submitted November 2, 2009.
Decided December 3, 2009.
Rehearing Denied January 25, 2010.

[688 S.E.2d 131]

William S.F. Freeman, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Robert C. Rhoden, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

Sean Giovannetti, of Boiling Springs, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.


Laura D. (Mother), an inmate at the Camille Griffin Graham Correctional Institution, appeals the family court's denial of her motion for a continuance when the Department of Corrections (the Department) failed to transport Mother to a judicial review hearing despite a court order finding Mother was a "necessary and proper party." We reverse and remand.

FACTS

On April 27, 2007, Mother and Carmen C. (Child), then two years and four months old, tested positive for cocaine. According to the guardian ad litem (GAL), Child ingested drugs that Mother had purchased. As a result, Child was taken into emergency protective custody, and on May 9, 2007, the family court granted the Department of Social Services (DSS) custody of Child. Thereafter, Mother stipulated, without admission, that she physically neglected Child, and therefore, Child had been abused or neglected. On October 2, 2007, the family court issued a removal order and ordered Mother complete a treatment plan. Previously, findings were made against Jerome C. (Father), and he was ordered to complete a treatment plan as well. The family court's order deferred deciding permanency planning and the issue of Mother's payment of child support.

On January 8, 2008, the family court held a hearing and found Father had substantially complied with his treatment plan, but Mother had not. As a result, the family court issued an order for permanency planning, placing Child in Father's custody. The family court stated Father's custody of Child shall not affect Mother's ability to complete her treatment plan, and it ordered DSS to continue supervising visits between Mother and Child. A judicial review was scheduled for six months following Father's taking custody of Child.

688 S.E.2d 132

Subsequently, Mother was incarcerated. As a result, the family court ordered the Department to transport Mother to the June 27, 2008 judicial review hearing because Mother was a "necessary and proper party." Although the order of transport was faxed to the Department, the Department failed to transport Mother to the hearing. When the hearing began, Mother's counsel moved for a continuance, arguing: "I hate for this hearing to proceed without [Mother] through no fault of her own, and, in fact, despite the court order is not present." The family court responded:

Well, I want to respond to your statement that she is not here, that it's not her fault that she is not. She did get herself put in prison. So to the extent that she is not able to physically move about as she would like to, she is responsible for that.

Subsequently, the family court denied her motion.1

The family court then issued a written order finding Mother...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Choudhry v. Sinha, 2020-UP-262
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 9 Septiembre 2020
    ...[court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Laura D., 386 S.C. 382, 385, 688 S.E.2d 130, 132 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The denial of a motion for a continuance 'will not be upset unless it clearly appears that there w......
  • Choudhry v. Sinha, 2020-UP-262
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 16 Diciembre 2020
    ...[court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Laura D., 386 S.C. 382, 385, 688 S.E.2d 130, 132 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The denial of a motion for a continuance 'will not be upset unless it clearly appears that there w......
  • Choudhry v. Sinha, Appellate Case No. 2017-001082
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 9 Septiembre 2020
    ...[court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Laura D., 386 S.C. 382, 385, 688 S.E.2d 130, 132 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The denial of a motion for a continuance 'will not be upset unless it clearly appears that there w......
  • Choudhry v. Sinha, Appellate Case No. 2017-001082
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 9 Septiembre 2020
    ...[court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Laura D., 386 S.C. 382, 385, 688 S.E.2d 130, 132 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The denial of a motion for a continuance 'will not be upset unless it clearly appears that there w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Choudhry v. Sinha, 2020-UP-262
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 9 Septiembre 2020
    ...[court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Laura D., 386 S.C. 382, 385, 688 S.E.2d 130, 132 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The denial of a motion for a continuance 'will not be upset unless it clearly appears that there w......
  • Choudhry v. Sinha, 2020-UP-262
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 16 Diciembre 2020
    ...[court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Laura D., 386 S.C. 382, 385, 688 S.E.2d 130, 132 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The denial of a motion for a continuance 'will not be upset unless it clearly appears that there w......
  • Choudhry v. Sinha, Appellate Case No. 2017-001082
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 9 Septiembre 2020
    ...[court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Laura D., 386 S.C. 382, 385, 688 S.E.2d 130, 132 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The denial of a motion for a continuance 'will not be upset unless it clearly appears that there w......
  • Choudhry v. Sinha, Appellate Case No. 2017-001082
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 9 Septiembre 2020
    ...[court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Laura D., 386 S.C. 382, 385, 688 S.E.2d 130, 132 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The denial of a motion for a continuance 'will not be upset unless it clearly appears that there w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT