Michael P. v. Greenville County Dss

• Decision Date: 02 October 2009
• Docket Number: No. 4621.,4621.
• Citation: 684 S.E.2d 211,385 S.C. 407
• Parties: MICHAEL P. and Lisa P., Appellants, v. GREENVILLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Roy H., James T., John Doe, Tiniki J., and Erin S., Defendants, of whom Greenville County Department of Social Services, Roy H., Tiniki J., and Erin S. are the Respondents. Baby M., a minor under the age of 14 years.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

684 S.E.2d 211

385 S.C. 407

MICHAEL P. and Lisa P., Appellants, v. GREENVILLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Roy H., James T., John Doe, Tiniki J., and Erin S., Defendants, of whom Greenville County Department of Social Services, Roy H., Tiniki J., and Erin S. are the Respondents.

Baby M., a minor under the age of 14 years.

No. 4621.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted September 1, 2009.

Decided October 2, 2009.

Rehearing Denied October 22, 2009.

David Holmes, of Greenville, for Appellants.

Deborah Murdock, of Mauldin; Jennifer L. Coyle, Margaret Chamberlain, and Symmes Watkins Culbertson, all of Greenville; for Respondents.

Jefferson Glenn Wood, of Greenville, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

Michael and Lisa P. (Appellants) appeal from an order of the family court finding they lacked standing to petition the court to adopt their former foster child (Child). Because Appellants previously declined to adopt Child and the Department of Social Services (DSS) has since placed Child in a new, pre-adoptive home, we affirm.¹

FACTS

On January 19, 2007, Child was born with cocaine in his system and was immediately placed in emergency protective custody. After DSS filed a complaint to remove him from his biological mother (Mother), the family court granted DSS custody, and in turn, DSS placed him in foster care with Appellants.

Approximately one year later, DSS approached Appellants about adopting Child. Appellants claim they strongly considered adopting Child, but ultimately declined in order to allow a younger, childless couple to adopt. According to Appellants, when DSS removed Child from Appellants' home, the agency told them Child would be placed with a young father and mother in their twenties and "even suggested that there was the possibility that the Appellants could be involved in taking [Child] to the new home and may be involved in his life thereafter."

On February 6, 2008, DSS moved Child from the Appellants' foster home to the home of Erin S. (Respondent). DSS had previously approved Respondent, age thirty-four, as a "pre-adoptive, foster parent."

On June 10, 2008, four months after Child had been removed from their home, Appellants filed a complaint seeking to adopt Child or, alternatively, to obtain custody of Child. Additionally, Appellants complained had they known DSS placed Child with a lesbian, they would not have agreed to release Child. The same day, Appellants filed a motion for temporary relief, asking the family court to place Child in their home immediately or to allow them "substantial visitation."

On July 7, 2008, the family court conducted a hearing on Appellants' motion for temporary relief. Appellants stated that, since filing their motion, they had obtained consent for the adoption of Child from both natural parents and therefore had not served them. In addition to the biological parents' absence, Child's guardian ad litem, Jeff Wood, was also not present at the hearing. Because the Appellants could not prove service on Wood or the biological parents, the court continued the hearing.²

Subsequently, Respondent filed a motion to intervene in the Appellants' adoption action. The family court granted her motion, and Respondent moved to dismiss the adoption petition, arguing Appellants lacked standing.

On October 13, 2008, the family court resumed its hearing on Appellants' motion for temporary relief that had been continued in July. At this hearing, the court expressed concern about ruling on a motion for temporary relief before it ruled on Respondent's motion to dismiss the action. DSS added that Mother had been contacting the DSS office and demanding to see Child; as a result, DSS requested a ruling on whether the relinquishments signed by Mother and child's biological father (Father) were valid. DSS explained that Mother's relinquishment stated she wanted the Appellants to adopt Child, and DSS was unsure "if she would have signed it if she had known that she had no say so now."

The guardian advised the family court that both foster homes provided a nurturing environment and stated he did not want Child "to get thrown back and forth during litigation." The court expressed concern that Father, although present, was unrepresented by counsel. The court appointed an attorney to represent Father and continued the hearing to allow all motions, claims, and counterclaims to be decided at the same time.

The family court reconvened the hearing on Appellants' motion for temporary relief on November 5, 2008. The hearing also addressed DSS's motion asking the court to determine the validity of the birth parents' relinquishments and Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

With regard to the relinquishments, Mother's attorney stated: "She did want to let the court know that she would have signed this relinquishment regardless of who would ultimately get the custody or be able to adopt the child. She wants the relinquishment to stand." Father's attorney added: "It's his desire today to go ahead and agree to relinquishment of parental rights...." The court then advised the attorneys the relinquishments were not valid until all conditions were deleted.

The court heard testimony from Mother and Father regarding their understanding of the relinquishments. Mother and Father confirmed they understood they had no control over DSS's placement of Child after they relinquished parental rights. The court allowed the Mother and Father to strike the conditions from the relinquishments. In its written order, the court found Mother and Father "fully and unconditionally relinquish[ed] their parental rights to [Child]."

Next, the family court addressed Respondent's motion to dismiss Appellants' complaint based on lack of standing. Appellants argued they had standing under section 63-9-60 of the South Carolina Code (2008)³ and because they are foster parents with whom Child spent his first year. Respondent argued that although part (A) of section 63-9-60 permits "any party to adopt," part (B) clarifies the section and does not apply to a child placed by DSS for the purpose of adoption.

The family court granted Respondent's motion to dismiss, finding Appellants lacked standing under section 63-9-60 because Child was placed by DSS for the purpose of adoption. Appellants filed a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, arguing the court erred by finding the conditional element of the birth parents' relinquishments rendered them invalid and by failing to address their standing by virtue of the biological parents' relinquishments. They reasserted their argument of standing pursuant to section 63-9-60; alleged if Respondent had standing because she is a foster parent, then the same is true for them; and complained the family court did not address the best interests of Child. The motion was denied February 5, 2009. In a March 17, 2009 order, the family court granted the Appellants' motion to stay further adoption proceedings pending the outcome of any appeals, though DSS was permitted to continue TPR efforts. This appeal followed.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Appellants argue they have standing pursuant to section 63-9-60 of the South Carolina Code (2008), or in the alternative, they have standing by virtue of being the former foster parents of Child. They further argue the family court erred by not addressing Respondent's sexual orientation and how it affected Child's best interest. We disagree.⁴

I. Standing Under Section 63-9-60 of the South Carolina Code

Section 63-9-60, titled "Persons who may adopt," provides:

(A)(1) Any South Carolina resident may petition the court to adopt a child. Placement of children for adoption pursuant to this article is limited to South Carolina residents with exceptions being made in the following circumstances only:

[(a)-(e) omitted]

(f) the child has been in foster care for at least six months after having been legally freed for adoption and no South Carolina resident has been identified as a prospective adoptive home.

(2) Before a child is placed within or outside the boundaries of this State for adoption with nonresidents of this State, compliance with Article 11 (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children) is required, and a judicial determination must be made in this State that one of the circumstances in items (a) through (f) of this section applies....

(B) This section does not apply to a child placed by the State Department of Social Services or any agency under contract with the department for purposes of placing that child for adoption. Neither the department nor its contractors may delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption by a nonresident if that nonresident has been approved for adoption of the child by another state authorized to approve such placements pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children. The department shall provide an opportunity for a hearing, in accordance with the department's fair hearing procedures, to a nonresident who believes that the department, in violation of this section, has delayed or denied placement of a child for adoption.

(Emphasis added).

Appellants rely on the introduction to section 63-9-60(A)(1) to assert that they have standing to petition to adopt Child because it provides "any South Carolina resident may adopt." Appellants argue the first sentence of section 63-9-60(B) applies only to subsection (B) and does not apply to section 63-9-60 in its entirety.

The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature. State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 561, 647 S.E.2d 144, 161 (2007). Thus, in interpreting statutes, we look to the plain meaning of the statute and the intent of the legislature. State v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23, 32, 667 S.E.2d 728, 733 (2008). A statute's language must be construed in light of the intended purpose of the statute. Id. at 33, 667 S.E.2d at 733. Whenever possible, legislative intent should be found in the plain language of...