Ex parte Charles, 2021-UP-004

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Parties: Ex Parte Linda Charles, Proposed Intervenor/Appellant. v. Eric J. Perry, Respondent. Craig Doehner and Sharon Doehner, Respondents, In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2020-000002
• Docket Number: 2021-UP-004
• Decision Date: 05 January 2021

Ex Parte Linda Charles, Proposed Intervenor/Appellant.

Craig Doehner and Sharon Doehner, Respondents,
v.
Eric J. Perry, Respondent.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2020-000002

No. 2021-UP-004

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

January 5, 2021

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted November 9, 2020

Appeal From Georgetown County Melissa J. Buckhannon, Family Court Judge.

Brana J. Williams, of Williams Law Firm, LLC; and Ryan A. Stampfle, of Indigo Family Law, LLC, both of Surfside Beach, for Appellant.

John M. Hilliard, III, of Hilliard Law Firm, LLC, of Georgetown; and Allison Bullard McNair, of Building Families LLC, of Columbia, for Respondents Craig Doehner and Sharon Doehner.

Eric J. Perry, pro se.

Barbara Wilson Pratt, of Conway, as Guardian ad Litem.

Russell W. Hall, III, of Myrtle Beach, as Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

Linda Charles appeals an order denying her motion to intervene in a termination of parental rights (TPR) action concerning her grandchildren (Children). On appeal, Charles argues (1) a grandparent with visitation rights should be permitted to intervene in a TPR action concerning her grandchildren and (2) Sharon and Craig Doehner's contemptuous behavior in denying her visitation should not be rewarded by denying Charles's motion to intervene. Charles also asks this court to clarify whether a grandparent's preexisting visitation rights survive TPR and adoption. We affirm.

This case has a tragic background. In September 2017, Children's father murdered their mother; he is serving a forty-five year prison sentence. The Doehners, who are Children's maternal grandparents, filed a custody action in October 2017 and obtained a final order granting them custody of Children. Thereafter, Charles, Children's paternal grandmother, filed a visitation action. Following a four-day hearing, the family court issued an order on October 8, 2019, awarding Charles visitation.^[1]

On July 22, 2019, while Charles's visitation action was pending, the Doehners filed an action for TPR and adoption. On August 21, 2019, Charles filed a motion to intervene in the Doehners' TPR and adoption action. On October 8, 2019, Charles filed an amended motion to intervene, asserting the family court had just issued an order awarding her visitation.

On January 13, 2020, the family court issued an order denying intervention. In finding Charles lacked standing, the court found "her consent or relinquishment [was] not required in this adoption proceeding." Likewise, the court determined Charles had "separate, distinct visitation rights already decided upon and established in a prior, separate [c]ourt order," and "[t]hose interests [would] not be extinguished in a TPR and adoption matter against [Children's father]." Charles filed a motion to reconsider, which the family court denied. This appeal followed.

On appeal from the family court, this court reviews factual and legal issues de novo. Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011). However, "[w]e review a family court's evidentiary or procedural rulings under an abuse of discretion standard." Cooper v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 428 S.C. 402, 410, 835 S.E.2d 516, 520 (2019).

In Chavis v. Witt, 285 S.C. 77, 79, 328 S.E.2d 74, 75 (1985), our supreme court considered whether adoption would "preclude...