Jamison v. Jamison, 0477

Citation330 S.E.2d 671,285 S.C. 603
Decision Date20 March 1985
Docket NumberNo. 0477,0477
PartiesJames Robert JAMISON, Respondent, v. Patricia Turney JAMISON, James Leslie Elliott and Kelly Dylan Elliott, a minor under the age of fourteen years, of whom James Leslie Elliott is the Appellant. Appeal of James Leslie ELLIOTT. . Heard
CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina

Michael D. Keys, Greenville, for appellant.

M. Leonard Ledford, Greenville, for respondent.

Ronald Friddle, Greenville, guardian ad litem for the minor: Kelly Dylan Elliott.

SANDERS, Chief Judge:

Respondent James Robert Jamison brought this action to adopt his stepson, Kelly Dylan Elliott. Appellant James Leslie Elliott is the biological father of the child. Respondent Patricia Turney Jamison is the biological mother of the child. She was formerly married to Mr. Elliott and is now married to Mr. Jamison. The trial judge terminated the parental rights of Mr. Elliott and granted the adoption. We affirm.

Mr. Elliott and Ms. Jamison were married in December 1973, the same month and year the child Kelly was born in New Orleans. Soon after Kelly was born, Mr. Elliott and Ms. Jamison permanently separated. Ms. Jamison and Kelly moved to Greenville, South Carolina where they lived with Ms. Jamison's father, who had paid all of the hospital costs attendant to the birth of Kelly. Mr. Elliott and Ms. Jamison never lived together once she and Kelly moved to Greenville.

Either shortly before or soon after their separation, Mr. Elliott became involved with drugs, was shot by a policeman, and was rendered a paraplegic. Between 1974 and 1982, he lived in South Carolina, Louisiana, Indiana and Missouri. He was hospitalized on numerous occasions for treatment of serious medical problems but had periods of relative wellness. In 1975 and 1976, Ms. Jamison and Kelly traveled from Greenville to New Orleans to visit Mr. Elliott when he was gravely ill.

In 1978, Mr. Elliott came to Greenville, called Ms. Jamison at her father's home and arranged to see Kelly. Ms. Jamison and her sister took Kelly to a meeting point away from her home for this purpose. Mr. Elliott testified that Ms. Jamison threatened to have him arrested if he came to her home. The visit was brief. Ms. Jamison attributed its brevity to the fact that Mr. Elliott was interested in talking to her but she had nothing to say to him. Her sister testified that during the visit Mr. Elliott devoted most of his attention to Ms. Jamison, not Kelly.

On September 1978, Mr. Elliott and Ms. Jamison were divorced on the grounds of desertion for one year and separation for three years. The divorce was uncontested. Mr. and Mrs. Jamison were married the following year. They have lived together with Kelly as a family ever since.

Mr. Elliott testified that he mailed numerous letters to Ms. Jamison and Kelly, including a letter dated July 18, 1981. Ms. Jamison testified that after Mr. Elliott's visit in 1978, his only communication with her was the July 18, 1981 letter which read in part:

I have written and rewritten this letter many times in the last three years. Each time I tore it up. I could never send it....

I have no desire to meddle in your lives as I threw that right away years ago ... I have been accepted into a school to learn computer programming. School starts September 14th. [sic] and I am looking forward to it. (Emphasis added).

Mr. Elliott graduated from computer programming school in June 1982, the same month Mr. Jamison instituted this action for termination of his parental rights and adoption of Kelly.

During the six month period prior to the institution of this action, Mr. Elliott neither visited Kelly nor did he make any payments toward his support. Although his mobility and income were limited during this period, Mr. Elliott was able to live by himself, attend classes, and be interviewed by prospective employers. He received $284 monthly as supplemental security income and his housing was subsidized by the government. He made no effort to arrange for Kelly to receive SSI benefits as the dependent of a disabled person.

The trial judge terminated Mr. Elliott's parental rights based on a finding that he had abandoned Kelly. Mr. Elliott argues that the order of the trial judge should be reversed because the judge did not explicitly find that his abandonment of Kelly was willful. He further argues that the evidence does not support...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Berry v. Ianuario
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 23, 1985
    ...455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Richberg v. Dawson, 278 S.C. 356, 296 S.E.2d 338 (1982); Jamison v. Jamison, --- S.C. ---, 330 S.E.2d 671 (Ct.App.1985). It is undisputed that Kitchen failed to visit Sherry during the six month period prior to this action. It is also und......
  • Temples v. Ramsey
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 1985
  • Cooley v. Cooley, 1193
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 13, 1988
    ...if the appellate court can review the record and find clear and convincing evidence supporting termination. Jamison v. Jamison, 285 S.C. 603, 330 S.E.2d 671 (Ct.App.1985). We hold there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial judge's finding of All other issues raised by appel......

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