Johnson v. Johnson
Decision Date | 05 December 2018 |
Docket Number | 2018-UP-447 |
Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
Parties | Bernard Johnson, Respondent, v. Jonquiel T. Johnson, Appellant. Appellate No. 2016-002289 |
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 October 1, 2018
Appeal From Richland County Monét S. Pincus, Family Court Judge
James Ross Snell, Jr. and Vicki D Koutsogiannis, of Law Office Of James R. Snell, Jr., LLC, both of Lexington, for Appellant.
Ryan W. Lane, of The Lane Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
Jonquiel Johnson (Mother) appeals the family court's award of joint custody of a minor child (Child) with primary placement to Bernard Johnson (Father). On appeal, Mother argues the family court erred in (1) denying her motions for reconsideration or a new trial under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) SCRCP, (2) failing to consider Mother's role as primary caretaker when awarding primary placement of Child with Father, (3) concluding Mother deliberately failed to cooperate with Father regarding visitation and Child's care, and (4) providing insufficient time for Mother to present her case during the final hearing. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the family court erred in denying Mother's post-trial motions: Ware v. Ware, 404 S.C. 1, 10 743 S.E.2d 817, 822 (2013) (); Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 216, 612 S.E.2d 456 458 (Ct. App. 2005) (); Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593, 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486, 486 n.2 (2018) ( ); Bowers v. Bowers, 304 S.C. 65, 67, 403 S.E.2d 127 129 (Ct. App. 1991) (); id. at 68, 403 S.E.2d at 129 (); Rule 60(b)(1)-(3), SCRCP (providing that "[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party" from a final order due to "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); [or] (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party"); Rouvet v. Rouvet, 388 S.C. 301, 309-10, 696 S.E.2d 204, 208 (Ct. App. 2010) ; Lanier, 364 S.C. at 218, 612 S.E.2d at 459 (); id. at 219, 612 S.E.2d at 460 ; Gainey v. Gainey, 382 S.C. 414, 425, 675 S.E.2d 792, 798 (Ct. App. 2009) (); Rycroft v. Tanguay, 279 S.C. 76, 79, 302 S.E.2d 327, 329 (1983) ().
2. As to whether the family court erred in awarding primary placement of Child with Father by failing to consider Mother's role as a primary caretaker and finding Mother was uncooperative: S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-230(A) (Supp 2018) (); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-230(C) (Supp. 2018) (); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240(B) (Supp. 2018) ( ); § 63-15-240(B)(6) ( ); § 63-15-240(B)(15) (providing the court may consider "whether one parent has perpetrated domestic violence . . . or the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents"); § 63-15-240(B)(17) ( ); Parris v. Parris, 319 S.C. 308, 310, 460 S.E.2d 571, 572 (1995) (); id. at 311, 460 S.E.2d at 573 ("[When] the record reveals a pattern of one parent as primary caretaker and the other parent as the primary wage earner, it would be incomprehensible for a court to disregard this fact in awarding custody."); Brown v. Brown, 362 S.C. 85, 91, 606 S.E.2d 785, 788 (Ct. App. 2004) ; Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 11, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996) ("[W]hen determining to whom custody shall be awarded, all the conflicting rules and presumptions should be weighed together with all of the circumstances of the particular case, and all relevant factors must be taken into consideration."); Ware v. Ware, 404 S.C. 1, 10, 743 S.E.2d 817, 822 (2013) (); Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 215, 612 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ct. App. 2005) (); Shirley v. Shirley, 342 S.C. 324, 329, 536 S.E.2d 427, 429-30 (Ct. App. 2000) (); id. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial