Hagood v. Hagood

• Decision Date: 19 December 2018
• Docket Number: 2018-UP-471
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Melissa Leaphart Hagood, Appellant, v. James Buckner Hagood, Defendant; Melody "Suzie" Hagood Sharpe, 3rd Party Defendant, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2016-001637

Melissa Leaphart Hagood, Appellant, v. James Buckner Hagood, Defendant;

Melody "Suzie" Hagood Sharpe, 3rd Party Defendant, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2016-001637

No. 2018-UP-471

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

December 19, 2018

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.

Heard December 4, 2018

Appeal From Richland County Anne Gue Jones, Family Court Judge

James Ross Snell, Jr. and Vicki D Koutsogiannis, of Law Office of James R. Snell, Jr., LLC, of Lexington, for Appellant.

John S. Simmons, of Simmons Law Firm, LLC, and Peter George Currence, of McDougall, Self, Currence & McLeod, LLP both of Columbia, for Respondent Melody "Suzie" Hagood Sharpe.

Carrie Hall Tanner, of Speedy, Tanner, Atkinson & Cook, LLC, of Camden, for Respondent James Buckner Hagood.

PER CURIAM:

Melissa Hagood (Mother) appeals the family court's order (1) awarding joint custody of her minor child (Child) to James Hagood and Melody Hagood Sharpe (Sister) and allowing her only supervised visitation; (2) refusing to review Child's diary; (3) ordering Mother to pay a portion of Sister's attorney's fees; and (4) finding Mother in willful contempt for failing to turn over Child's diary and for failing to pay child support. We affirm^[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in the custody determination: Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593, 594 813 S.E.2d 486, 486 (2018) (per curiam) (providing that on appeal from the family court, this court reviews factual and legal issues de novo); Clark v. Clark, 423 S.C. 596 604, 815 S.E.2d 772, 776 (Ct. App. 2018) ("The paramount and controlling factor in every custody dispute is the best interests of the children." (quoting Brown v Brown, 362 S.C. 85, 90, 606 S.E.2d 785, 788 (Ct. App. 2004))); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-230(A) (Supp. 2018) ("The [family] court shall make the final custody determination in the best interest of the child based upon the evidence presented."); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-230(C) (Supp. 2018) ("If custody is contested or if either parent seeks an award of joint custody, the court shall consider all custody options, including . . . joint custody, and, in its final order, the court shall state its determination as to custody and shall state its reasoning for that decision."); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240(B) (Supp. 2018) (providing that in issuing a custody order "the [family] court must consider the best interest of the child" and providing seventeen factors the court may include in its analysis); § 63-15-240(B)(6) (providing the court may consider "the actions of each parent to encourage the continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent, as is appropriate, including compliance with court orders"); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-30 (2010) ("In determining the best interests of the child, the court must consider the child's reasonable preference for custody. The court shall place weight upon the preference based upon the child's age, experience, maturity, judgment, and ability to express a preference."); Rice v. Rice, 335 S.C. 449, 458, 517 S.E.2d 220, 225 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[A] determination of the best interest[s] of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry."); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 (holding the de novo standard of review "does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial judge is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the trial judge"); Brown, 362 S.C. at 93-94, 606 S.E.2d at 789 ("The child's preference will be given little weight where the wishes of the child are influenced by the permissive attitude of the preferred parent."); id. at 95, 606 S.E.2d at 790 ("[A] determination of the best interests of the child is paramount to the child's preference."); Frye v. Frye, 323 S.C. 72, 76, 448 S.E.2d 586, 588 (Ct. App. 1994) ("A family court may impose upon a noncustodial parent such conditions and restrictions on [her] visitation privileges as the court, in its discretion, thinks proper.").

2. As to whether the family court erred in refusing to review Child's diary: Stoney, 422 S.C. at 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d at 486 n.2 (acknowledging our appellate courts review the family court's "evidentiary or procedural rulings . . . using an abuse of discretion standard"); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Lisa C., 380 S.C. 406, 411, 669 S.E.2d 647, 650 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The [family] court abuses its discretion when that decision is based upon an error of law or upon factual findings that are without evidentiary support."); Altman v. Griffith, 372 S.C. 388, 401, 642 S.E.2d 619, 626 (Ct. App. 2007) ("To warrant reversal based on the admission or exclusion of evidence, the complaining party must prove both error and resulting prejudice.").

3. As to whether the family court erred in ordering Mother to pay a portion of Sister's attorney's fees: Stoney 422 S.C. at 594, 813 S.E.2d at 486 (providing that on appeal from the family court, this court reviews factual and legal issues de novo); Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 210, 708 S.E.2d 799, 805 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The award of attorney's fees in a domestic action rests within the sound discretion of the family court."); E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (providing the family court should consider four factors in deciding to award attorney's fees and costs: "(1) the party's ability to pay his/her own attorney's fee; (2) beneficial results obtained by the attorney; (3) the parties' respective financial conditions; [and] (4) effect of...