Fisher v. Miller

Decision Date11 March 1986
Docket NumberNo. 22553,22553
Citation288 S.C. 576,344 S.E.2d 149
PartiesMarie Williams Miller FISHER, Appellant, v. Robert Warren MILLER, Respondent. . Heard
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Douglas L. Hinds and Hal M. Strange of Hinds, Cowan & Strange, Georgetown, for appellant.

Kenneth L. Mitchum, Georgetown, for respondent.

FINNEY, Justice:

Appellant (Mother) initiated proceedings in the Family Court of Georgetown County seeking to gain custody of the parties' minor child from the respondent (Father), alleging a significant change of circumstances since the order awarding Father custody. The trial judge ordered custody to remain with the Father, reduced the Mother's visitations, and found the Mother in contempt of court. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The proceedings which precipitated this appeal were all in equity and each proceeding was tried separately by a different judge; therefore, this Court may determine the facts in keeping with its view of the preponderance of the evidence. Townes Associates, Ltd., v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). We must look to all of the evidence and to the totality of the circumstances of the parents.

CHANGE OF CUSTODY

The Mother alleges that she has remarried and could provide a better home environment than that presently afforded the parties' child. Based upon the required standard of review, we conclude that the trial judge applied and followed the appropriate standard in determining the burden upon a parent seeking to change custody. Bolding v. Bolding, 278 S.C. 129, 293 S.E.2d 699 (1982). The welfare and best interests of the child are of paramount consideration in custody cases, Matthews v. Matthews, 273 S.C. 130, 254 S.E.2d 801 (1979); and not every change of circumstances will warrant a change of custody, Lowe v. Lindley, 272 S.C. 143, 249 S.E.2d 750 (1978). Remarriage alone is not sufficient to warrant a change of custody. Green v. Loveday, 270 S.C. 410, 242 S.E.2d 441 (1978).

Broad discretion is given Family Court judges who observe the witnesses and are in a better position to judge their demeanor and veracity. McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 299 S.E. 322 (1982). A careful review of the entire record convinces us that the trial judge was correct in declining to grant the Mother's request to change custody. We affirm.

REDUCTION OF MOTHER'S VISITATION RIGHTS

The Mother faithfully exercised her visitation rights, traveling 900 miles per visit, by driving, riding a bus, or by catching a ride with a member of her family. She made this journey on fifty-two of sixty weekends available; and of the eight weekends missed, she explained that these were because of sickness, work, weather conditions or unavailability of transportation. The judge reduced the Mother's visitations and noted in the order that the modification was necessitated by the fact that the parties encountered problems with implementation of the prior visitation order.

The record reveals that there were problems between the parties with implementation of the order, but there is no showing or finding as to which of the parties was responsible for the implementation problems. Further, there was no finding that a reduction of the Mother's visitations was in the best interest of the child, Matthews v. Matthews, sup...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Dodge v. Dodge
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 20, 1998
    ...In a custody dispute, the paramount and controlling factor is the welfare and best interests of the child. Fisher v. Miller, 288 S.C. 576, 578, 344 S.E.2d 149, 150 (1986). This court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Epperly v. Epperly, 312......
  • Latimer v. Farmer
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 16, 2004
    ...a sufficient change of circumstance affecting the welfare of Child to warrant a transfer of custody to Mother. See Fisher v. Miller, 288 S.C. 576, 344 S.E.2d 149 (1986) (remarriage alone is not sufficient to warrant a change in custody). Likewise, a change in Father's residence is not itsel......
  • Pountain v. Pountain, 2849.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1998
    ...our view, the mother's remarriage is a factor properly considered in favor of granting her custody of the child. See Fisher v. Miller, 288 S.C. 576, 344 S.E.2d 149 (1986) (remarriage is a circumstance which when considered with other change of circumstances, may warrant a change of custody)......
  • Alligood v. Hunt
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1987
    ...but did not find the remarriage sufficient in itself to justify a change of custody. This ruling was proper. See Fisher v. Miller, 288 S.C. 576, 344 S.E.2d 149 (1986); Rodgers v. Gray, 285 S.C. 111, 328 S.E.2d 478 (1985); Stutz v. Funderburk, 272 S.C. 273, 252 S.E.2d 32 (1979); Green v. Lov......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter Eleven Visitation
    • United States
    • Marital Litigation in South Carolina (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...the change of custody or visitation rights in the future. (citations omitted).'" King at 183, 177 S.E.2d 600-601. In Fisher v. Miller, 288 S.C. 576, 344 S.E.2d 149 (1986), the Supreme Court denied a request to reduce the mother's visitation since there was no showing of changed circumstance......
  • Chapter Ten Child Custody
    • United States
    • Marital Litigation in South Carolina (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...6. Remarriage Remarriage is a changed circumstance, but "remarriage alone is an insufficient basis for changing custody. Fisher v. Miller, 288 S.C. 576, 344 S.E.2d 149 (1986)." Sealy v. Sealy, 295 S.C. 281, 284, 368 S.E.2d 85, 87 (Ct. App. 1988). Custody is not to be changed unless a better......

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