Freeman v. Woodward
Decision Date | 23 March 2022 |
Docket Number | 2022-UP-128,Appellate Case 2020-000248 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Melanie Shannon Freeman and Edward Freeman, Jr., Appellants, v. Erica Woodward and Brandon Lucas, Respondents. |
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 February 1, 2022
Appeal From York County Timothy H. Pogue, Family Court Judge
Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of Union, for Appellants.
James David Duncan, of Duncan and Nobles LLC, and Syretta R Anderson, of Anderson Law Firm, both of Rock Hill, for Respondent Erica Woodward.
Brandon Lucas, of Heath Springs, pro se.
Melanie Shannon Freeman and Edward Freeman, Jr. (collectively, the Freemans) appeal the family court's award of custody of minor child (Child) to Erica Woodward (Mother) and award of attorney's fees and guardian ad litem (GAL) fees. On appeal, the Freemans argue the family court erred by (1) failing to award custody to them when Mother was unfit and it was not in Child's best interest to be placed with Mother and (2) ordering them to pay a portion of Mother's attorney's fees and half of the GAL fees. We affirm.
1. We hold the family court did not err in awarding custody of Child to Mother because the Freemans failed to rebut the presumption that returning custody of Child to Mother was in Child's best interest.[1] See Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ( ); Eason v. Eason 384 S.C. 473, 479, 682 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009) (ourt to disregard the findings of the family court.") However, this broad scope of review does not require ; Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75, 78-79, 386 S.E.2d 456, 458 (1989) () ; id. at 79-80, 386 S.E.2d at 458 ( ).
First, we hold the family court did not err in finding Mother was fit because Mother lived in the same two-bedroom apartment for over three years, retained the same job for multiple years, advanced to a management position, and showed an ability to properly care for Child by enrolling her in occupational therapy and speech therapy, as well as obtaining assistance with an early interventionist. See Urban v. Kerscher, 423 S.C. 615, 625, 817 S.E.2d 130, 135 (Ct. App. 2018) (). Second, Mother made several payments to the Freemans while Child was in their custody and visited Child when the Freemans allowed. Third, Mother remedied the circumstances surrounding the temporary relinquishment-a criminal domestic violence incident with her ex-boyfriend and Child's positive drug test-by obtaining a permanent restraining order between Child and the ex-boyfriend, completing multiple classes, including a victim's domestic abuse class, parenting classes, and a mental health assessment, and voluntarily obtaining weekly drug tests of her own accord. See id. at 628, 817 S.E.2d at 136 ( ). While Mother experienced drug addiction in the past, the testimony of the witnesses at trial established she remedied the circumstances surrounding the temporary relinquishment of custody. See Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 10, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996) ().
Fourth although the record showed Child bonded with the Freemans, testimony at trial established the bond flourished while the Freemans prevented Mother from visiting Child. See Moore, 300 S.C. at 81, 386 S.E.2d at 459 ( ). Based on the foregoing, we hold Mother is a fit parent who...
To continue reading
Request your trial