Greene v. Greene

• Decision Date: 26 April 2023
• Docket Number: 5983,Appellate Case 2019-001747
• Parties: Jennifer Lauren Greene, Appellant, v. Zachary Daniel Greene, Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina

1

Jennifer Lauren Greene, Appellant, v. Zachary Daniel Greene, Respondent.

No. 5983

Appellate Case No. 2019-001747

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

April 26, 2023

Heard March 22, 2023

Appeal From Greenville County Katherine H. Tiffany, Family Court Judge

Vanessa Hartman Kormylo, of Vanessa Hartman Kormylo, P.A. and Scarlet Bell Moore, of Scarlet Moore Law, both of Greenville, for Appellant.

Kimberly Fisher Dunham, of Kimberly Dunham, Attorney at Law of Greenville, for Respondent.

MCDONALD, J.

Jennifer Lauren Greene (Mother) appeals the family court's order awarding joint custody of the parties' young daughter (Child). She further challenges the family court's grant of primary decision-making authority for Child's education and health care needs to Zachary Daniel Greene (Father), as well as the court's award of the annual dependent tax deduction, child support, and attorney's fees. We affirm as modified and remand the fee award to the family court for consideration in accordance with this opinion.

Facts and Procedural History

Mother and Father were married in Anderson County in 2011. The couple have one child, a daughter born in August 2013. Mother and Father separated on July 23, 2017; the following day Mother filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, an order of separate support and maintenance, custody, child support, equitable division of marital property, and attorney's fees.

Prior to the initial temporary hearing, the parties notified the family court that they had reached an agreement and sought to submit a consent order; however, the parties were unable to agree on Father's visitation.

On September 4, 2017, Mother contacted the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Travelers Rest Police Department (TRPD) to report Child had made a statement about Father touching her "tickle spot," which Mother claimed Child identified by pointing to her clitoris. On September 15, 2017, Mother filed an amended complaint and motion for pendente lite relief seeking rehabilitative alimony and suspension of Father's visitation.

Following Mother's reporting, Child participated in a forensic interview at the Julie Valentine Center (JVC) in Greenville. During this interview, Child "easily engaged" with the interviewer but did not disclose abuse and "denied any [inappropriate] touches by nanna, mommy or daddy." Later that day, Mother asked Father to consent to a second opinion, and Father agreed (through counsel) to a joint private forensic evaluation with licensed professional counselor Cindy Stichnoth. Father further agreed the parties would split these costs, and his attorney asked that Stichnoth also examine any parental alienation issues. Around this same time, Mother began attending support group sessions at JVC, and Child began therapy with licensed independent social worker Sarah Davis.

On September 26, 2017, Mother filed an amended motion for pendente lite relief requesting that Father complete a psychosexual evaluation, turn over his electronic devices for review, and execute a medical disclosure authorization. On November 13, 2017, Stichnoth submitted an interim report recommending both parents submit to "psychological evaluations to assess parenting capacity" and "possible emotional instability." She also suggested that since Child had been "separated from her father for more than sixty days, placing her at higher risk of possible alienation or estrangement . . . [Child] may benefit from a clarification session with father in order to resume visitation with smooth transition."

One week later, DSS found "[t]he investigation/assessment did not produce a preponderance of the evidence that the child is an abused or neglected child." The TRPD likewise declined to file charges and closed its file.

On January 24, 2018, Dr. Mary Fran Croswell began a forensic medical evaluation but was unable to complete Child's physical examination due to the presence of labial adhesions.^[1] Dr. Croswell advised Mother to return with Child for further evaluation once the adhesions resolved.^[2] In talking with Dr. Croswell, Child, again, did not disclose abuse.

Following a January 30, 2018 temporary hearing, the family court awarded temporary custody to Mother and visitation to Father every other Saturday and Sunday. The court ordered Father's visitation be supervised in sight and sound by Father's father^[3] or another adult approved by the guardian ad litem (GAL). The court further ordered Father to submit to a psychosexual evaluation, pay monthly child support of $692, and participate in discovery "including but not limited to a request to review one another's current devices."

A few months later, during a March 1, 2018 therapy session with Davis, Child stated Father "tickled" her vagina.^[4] Child told Davis "she was three years old when this happened and it happened in the living room at their old house when she was naked." Following this report, Davis contacted TRPD and DSS. Although DSS opened a new investigation, TRPD did not.

Mother did not appear for Father's March 3, 2018 supervised visitation. Because Father believed Mother had blocked his number, Father asked his father to text her to see if she was still coming-Mother did not respond.

Around this same time, licensed clinical psychologist James Ruffing conducted a psychosexual evaluation of Father. Dr. Ruffing completed his initial report on March 8, 2018, finding, "There does not appear to be a propensity for sexual maladjustment or sexual impulsivity and the test results did not reflect unpredictability or peculiarity in thought and action, particularly in the sexual area." After reviewing Dr. Ruffing's report, the GAL emailed the parties' counsel, noting the report indicated Father "has no issues concerning abuse of children."^[5]The GAL then recommended Father have unsupervised standard visitation.

On April 2, 2018, the family court entered a supplemental consent order changing Child's therapist from Sara Davis to licensed professional counselor Meredith Thompson-Loftis; the parties further agreed to equally divide Child's therapy costs.

On April 9, 2018, during a second forensic interview at JVC, Child disclosed Father had tickled her vagina. The following exchange took place:

[Interviewer]: You don't remember. But you were in the bath and then-then what happened?

[Child]: I told her everything in the bath.

[Interviewer]: You told her everything in the bath?

[Child]: I don't really want to do this. I want to see my mom and told-told her I did-I told you.

[Interviewer]: You want to tell your mom that you told me?

[Child]: Yeah.

[Interviewer]: Well has anybody told you what to tell me or what to say to me today?

[Child]: No. But only my mom told me-told me that I had to tell you this.

[Interviewer]: She told you that-that you had to tell me this? How come she wanted me to tell you that?

[Child]: It [sic] because it [sic] important.

[Interviewer]: Because it's important. And how do you know that it's important?

[Child]: I'm [sic] just know.

Licensed clinical psychologist Luther Diehl completed a psychological evaluation of Mother on April 26, 2018. Dr. Diehl determined Mother has "adequate psychological resources to function in the role of a custodial parent." His diagnostic impression of Mother included passive aggressive personality traits but no specific categorization of parental alienation. However, Dr. Diehl specifically noted "it is difficult to establish alienating dynamics by evaluating one individual in a family system. In this case, it does not appear that [Mother] is markedly angry and hostile toward her estranged husband, but does have negative feelings because of what she has reportedly heard from her daughter." Diehl opined Mother "did not present a markedly negativistic statement regarding a belief that [Father] should not ever have any further visits with [Child, but she] did present some indications of some conflict in terms of her opinion about what should take place."

On May 8, 2018, the GAL filed an additional motion for temporary relief. Following a hearing, the family court removed the supervision requirement for Father's visitation. In its supplemental temporary order, the family court also noted the parties were free to supplement the information provided to Dr. Ruffing and Dr. Diehl for purposes of their respective psychological evaluations of the parties.^[6]

On June 20, 2018, TRPD reopened its investigation after receiving a copy of the DVD of Child's second forensic interview and reviewing additional affidavits provided by Mother. However, after considering Father's polygraph results, conducting further investigation, and consulting with a local magistrate, the TRPD investigator determined "there is no probable cause to believe that there was any sexual activity between [Father] and [Child]. This case is unfounded."^[7]

On October 8, 2018, Father filed a motion for temporary relief, seeking a holiday visitation schedule and division of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home. The motion further noted:

The Guardian ad Litem has requested that the minor child not wear the Gizmo watch to visitation with her Father. The Gizmo watch allows the Mother to hear conversations going on in the Father's residence during periods when he has visitation and to GPS track the minor child. Mother has refused not to send the watch.

Two days later, Mother filed a motion to remove the GAL. At the November 15, 2018 hearing addressing these matters Thompson-Loftis provided an affidavit stating she saw no clinical reason why Father's visitation with Child should not be expanded. The family court subsequently awarded Father holiday visitation, enjoined and restrained the parties from posting anything about the...