Halsema v. Earley
| Decision Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2023-UP-195,Appellate Case 2022-000047 |
| Parties | Michael Shawn Halsema, Respondent, v. Paige Ashli Earley, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
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 April 11, 2023
Appeal From York County Tony M. Jones, Family Court Judge Thomas Henry White, IV, Family Court Judge David G. Guyton, Family Court Judge James F. Fraley, Jr., Family Court Judge
Arlaine Rockey, of Marshall, North Carolina; and Gina R Collias, of Kings Mountain, North Carolina, both for Appellant.
Daniel Dominic D'Agostino and Jacqueline N. Davis, both of D'Agostino Law Firm, of York, for Respondent.
Nathan James Sheldon, of The Law Office of Nathan J. Sheldon, LLC of Rock Hill, for the Guardian ad Litem.
Paige Ashli Earley (Mother) appeals the family court's order approving her and Michael Shawn Halsema's (Father's collectively, the parties') mediated settlement agreement. Mother argues the family court (1) erred in holding the issue of whether the court made a finding of sexual abuse in a South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) action against the parties was the law of the case, (2) erred in approving the mediated settlement agreement when the guardian ad litem (GAL) was a necessary party and he did not have notice of or an opportunity to review the agreement and sign it, (3) abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Mother's expert witness and the expert witness's psychological report of the parties' minor child (Child), and (4) abused its discretion in awarding Father attorney's fees and costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
This appeal arises out of a private action between the parties to modify their custody and visitation agreement in regard to Child that was later consolidated with a DSS intervention action against the parties. In March 2019, DSS opened an investigation into the family in response to reports of sexual abuse of Child by Father. The parties filed their respective complaints seeking to modify their custody and visitation agreement on April 11, 2019. Mother also sought a restraining order against Father and filed an ex parte motion for emergency or expedited relief. On April 12, the family court filed an ex parte order for an expedited or emergency hearing, scheduling an emergency hearing for April 30 granting Mother temporary emergency custody of Child, and enjoining and restraining Father from having any contact with Child. DSS indicated a finding of physical neglect against Father on April 12, 2019.
On June 7, 2019, DSS filed an intervention action against the parties alleging conduct that DSS believed constituted inappropriate supervision by Father. DSS sought a finding from the family court of abuse and neglect as defined in section 63-7-20 of the South Carolina Code (2010 &Supp. 2022). On June 19 2019, the family court filed a temporary order in the parties' private action ordering that Father's visitation with Child should remain supervised, ordering that Child continue to attend counseling with Rebecca Gray, and mandating that the parties could not change Child's counselor without the family court's approval. The family court also ordered the parties to submit to psychological evaluations to determine whether either party engaged in parental alienation. The family court filed a second temporary order on July 12, 2019, ordering Father's supervision requirement be modified to require supervision only while in Father's home and prohibit him from entering Child's bedroom. Subsequently, the family court filed a consent order appointing Dr. Sean Knuth as the forensic custody evaluator to conduct a targeted forensic psychological evaluation of the parties. The family court ordered Dr. Knuth to address thirteen specific matters, including determining whether "either party ever behaved in an inappropriate sexual manner around [Child] which may be considered sexual abuse."
Following a merits hearing in the DSS intervention action held on September 23, 2019, the family court found, as the parties agreed, DSS would "hold the finding as it relate[d] to [Father] in abeyance upon completion of additionally requested treatment services," including parenting classes specifically designed to address the issues in the matter. After Father completed the parenting classes, the case would be monitored for thirty days and at that time could be closed by consent order. The family court filed an order consolidating the parties' private action and the DSS intervention action on December 10, 2019.
Thereafter, Father moved to suspend the visitation restrictions under the second temporary order. Following a motion hearing held on January 14, 2020, the family court rescinded Father's supervision requirement under the second temporary order but retained the provision prohibiting Father from entering Child's bedroom. During the hearing, the family court also addressed a consent order signed by the parties closing the DSS intervention action. Father had completed the requested parenting classes and the thirty-day monitoring period had expired. The DSS order closing the case was signed on January 14, 2020, and was filed two days later on January 16, 2020.
The parties signed a mediated settlement agreement on December 22, 2020. The parties were present with their attorneys. The parties agreed Father would have primary custody of Child and would make final decisions on all matters. Mother would have visitation every Thursday beginning at 6:00 p.m. until Friday morning when Mother returned Child to school and every other weekend from Friday after school until Monday morning when Mother returned Child to school. This schedule would continue during the summer except that each party would have two, nonconsecutive weeks during the summer. The agreement removed the provision prohibiting Father from being in Child's room from the second temporary order. In the agreement, the parties acknowledged its provisions were fair, equitable, adequate, and satisfactory; they were entering into the agreement voluntarily; and the agreement was not a result of coercion, duress, or undue influence. The parties confirmed the agreement was in Child's best interest.
On February 9, 2021, Mother filed an amended motion to set aside the mediated settlement agreement.[1] At the February 24, 2021 motion hearing, the family court stated the purpose of the hearing was "to determine the process[ of the parties entering into the mediated settlement agreement] and whether or not the process was valid or whether it was entered into under duress, fraud, or elements of that nature." It explained that in the event the agreement was not set aside, the parties would be entitled to a full hearing to determine whether the family court should approve the agreement. In its March 15, 2021 order denying Mother's motion to set aside the mediated settlement agreement, the family court found an agreement existed between the parties, it was reduced to writing, and it was executed by each party with their respective lawyers at the conclusion of the mediation. The family court further found the parties entered into the agreement freely and voluntarily. The court stated that a determination of whether the agreement was fair and reasonable from both a procedural and substantive perspective and whether the agreement was detrimental to Child would be addressed at a future hearing to approve the agreement. Mother did not immediately appeal this order.
The family court held the approval hearing on July 29, 2021. Father testified Mother took Child to see a psychologist, Dr. Dawn Y. Lanaville, without his knowledge and Mother provided him with the psychological report resulting from this evaluation, dated May 28, 2021, only a few weeks before the hearing. Father stated the evaluation was not in Child's best interest and he would have objected to Child participating in the evaluation had he known about it. Mother testified she hired Dr. Lanaville to perform a psychological evaluation on Child on March 16, 2021, and she did not inform Father.[2] Laurie Reed, Child's therapist, testified she had no involvement in Dr. Lanaville's psychological evaluation of Child. Reed raised several concerns about Mother submitting Child to a psychological evaluation with Dr. Lanaville.
Mother called Dr. Lanaville as a witness and Father objected, arguing the evaluation was done without Father's knowledge or consent, it was against the family court's order appointing Dr. Knuth as the forensic custody evaluator, Mother did not provide him with Dr. Lanaville's psychological report until June 28, 2021, and Mother did not provide him with requested documents pertaining to the report until the weekend before the hearing. Father stated Dr. Lanaville's attorney objected to his subpoena and refused to release Dr. Lanaville's data. Mother confirmed she provided Dr. Lanaville's psychological report to Father and the GAL on June 29, 2021. The GAL testified he was extremely concerned that Mother subjected Child to further psychological testing and he believed Dr. Lanaville was a necessary witness because it impacted his opinion on whether the mediated settlement agreement was in Child's best interest.
The family court suppressed Dr. Lanaville's testimony finding it was concerned "about how [Dr. Lanaville] ha[d] been brought up" when the information forming the basis of her psychological report was available prior to mediation. Mother requested to proffer Dr. Lanaville's testimony, and the family court refused to allow the proffer. Mother objected to the family court's refusal to...
To continue reading
Request your trial