Ex parte Roper, 19094

• Citation: 254 S.C. 558,176 S.E.2d 175
• Decision Date: 19 August 1970
• Docket Number: No. 19094,19094
• Parties: Ex parte Mary J. Dail ROPER, Appellant. In re Faye Vaughn DAIL (Now known as Faye V. Wilkie), Respondent, v. Victor DAIL, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

Page 175

176 S.E.2d 175

254 S.C. 558

Ex parte Mary J. Dail ROPER, Appellant.

In re Faye Vaughn DAIL (Now known as Faye V. Wilkie), Respondent, v. Victor DAIL, Appellant.

No. 19094.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 19, 1970.

J. Roy Berry, Johnston, W. Ray Berry, Columbia, for appellant.

Joe F. Anderson, Edgefield, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Justice.

This is a proceeding involving the custody of Wendy Yvonne Dail, age 6 at the time of the hearing below. Her parents, Victor Dail and Faye Vaughn Dail (now Wilkie), were divorced on September 5, 1968, and custody awarded to the mother, but with the right of visitation by the father while Wendy was visiting the home of her paternal grandmother, Mary J. Dail Roper, the petitioner-appellant herein.

Shortly after the decree of divorce a consent decree was entered whereby Mrs. Roper was awarded visitation by the said child for one week each month until the child began school, and thereafter for one weekend each month and two weeks each summer, in addition to a portion of the Christmas holidays, custody otherwise being granted exclusively to the mother of the child, now Mrs. Wilkie. The present proceeding was commenced by Mrs. Roper in August 1969, during a period of visitation by Wedny. Her petition questioned the propriety or advisability of continuing the custody of Wendy with her mother because of an alleged experience of Wendy with her stepfather, asserted to be improper and detrimental to the child. Upon the filing of this petition the court issued an order awarding custody, pendente lite, to Mrs. Roper and referring the cause to a special referee to take the testimony and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law as to 'what would be a proper custody for the minor child' and 'whether continuance of the custody in the home of the natural mother and in the home of the paternal grandparent, the Petitioner herein, would be detrimental to the child.'

Considerable testimony was taken before the special referee but we do not think any good purpose could be served by reviewing such in great detail. In brief, Mrs. Roper and her husband were allowed to testify, without objection, that Wendy had reported to them one or more instances of indecent exposure on the part of her stepfather, and had also charged her stepfather with undue familiarity and liberties with her person.

The Ropers took the child to the Mental Health Center at Greenwood. Professional personnel there endeavored to talk with Wendy but got very little from her other than that she had had some unpleasant experience with her stepfather which she did not wish to talk about. It was the opinion of these professionals that the child should not be permanently removed from her mother, but that she should not be returned immediately, nor until more facts could be learned.

The special referee made an effort to talk with Wendy, and Mr. and Mrs. Roper, as well as Mrs. Wilkie, tried, without success, to persuade Wendy to talk with the referee alone. From his observation of the parties, the referee concluded that while Wendy was attached to the Ropers, she seemed to be much more relaxed with her mother.

Mr. Wilkie testified at length and categorically denied any impropriety of whatsoever kind. Mrs. Wilkie expressed full confidence in her present...