Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, No. 3606.

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: HEARN, C.J.
• Citation: 353 S.C. 576,578 S.E.2d 733
• Parties: Jane DOE, Respondent, v. BABY BOY ROE, a minor under the age of fourteen (14) years, South Carolina Department of Social Services, Eric Stern and Patsy Jordan, Defendants, Of whom Patsy JORDAN is, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 10 March 2003
• Docket Number: No. 3606.

353 S.C. 576
578 S.E.2d 733

Jane DOE, Respondent,
v.
BABY BOY ROE, a minor under the age of fourteen (14) years, South Carolina Department of Social Services, Eric Stern and Patsy Jordan, Defendants, Of whom Patsy JORDAN is, Appellant

No. 3606.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard January 13, 2003.

Decided March 10, 2003.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 2003.

353 S.C. 578

Thomas L. Bruce, of Greenville, for Appellant

Robert D. Moseley, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent.

Frances E. Duarte, of Greenville, for Guardian Ad Litem.

HEARN, C.J.:

Patsy Jordan (Mother) appeals from a family court order terminating her parental rights to minor child, Baby Boy Roe, and granting his adoption to Roe's foster mother, Jane Doe. We affirm.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 17, 1998, Mother gave birth to Roe, who had illegal drugs in his system.¹ The next day, following the South Carolina Department of Social Services' (DSS) assessment that Mother posed a "high risk" of causing harm or physical abuse to Roe, DSS and Mother entered into a safety plan in which she agreed to seek substance abuse treatment. Eight days after Roe's birth, DSS placed him in protective custody. Roe remained hospitalized until placed in a foster home on December 8, 1998.

At the time of Roe's birth, Mother was on probation for drug and shoplifting offenses. By giving birth to a drug-addicted baby, Mother violated her probation, so she was incarcerated from November 1998 until July 1999.

In May 1999, the family court, operating under the assumption Mother had been released from jail, ordered Mother to pay monetary support to Roe. However, a second family court order was issued, dismissing Mother's child support obligation and noting Mother was "still in jail when that order was signed." The family court also ordered Mother to undergo drug and alcohol counseling and attend parenting classes.

353 S.C. 579

When Mother was released from jail in July, she took very few steps toward regaining custody of Roe. Although she did visit Roe, she failed to attend both the recommended outpatient drug treatment program and parenting classes. By October, Mother was incarcerated again for her tenth shoplifting offense

Once Mother was released from prison in January 2000, she immediately went into a drug addiction recovery program and began to turn her life around. Mother completed a six-week parenting class in May 2000, and in June, after the family court ordered Mother to pay child support for Roe, she began making payments.

Doe initiated this action to terminate Roe's parents' parental rights on July 21, 2000. Doe also sought to adopt Roe.

The family court terminated Mother's rights based on the child remaining in foster care for fifteen of the last twenty-two months and based on grounds of abandonment, failure to rehabilitate, failure to support, failure to visit, and diagnosable condition. The court also approved Doe's adoption of Roe, concluding the adoption was in Roe's best interests. Mother appeals, arguing that no ground existed to support the termination of her parental rights and that termination was not in Roe's best interests.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In a termination of parental rights (TPR) case, the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration. South Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Smith, 343 S.C. 129, 133, 538 S.E.2d 285, 287 (Ct.App.2000). Grounds for TPR must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 297, 513 S.E.2d 358, 366 (1999); see also Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) ("Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing...