Richland County Dept. of Social Services v. Hills, 20538

• Decision Date: 03 November 1977
• Docket Number: No. 20538,20538
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: RICHLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent, v. Paul Edward HILLS, Emma Hills, and Paul Anthony Hills, a minor under age of fourteen (14) years, of whom Paul Edward Hills and Emma Hills, are, Appellants.

Page 685

238 S.E.2d 685

269 S.C. 568

RICHLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent, v. Paul Edward HILLS, Emma Hills, and Paul Anthony Hills, a

minor under age of fourteen (14) years, of whom

Paul Edward Hills and Emma Hills, are, Appellants.

No. 20538.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 3, 1977.

Edward A. Harter, Jr., Columbia, for appellants.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys. Gen. C. Havird Jones, Jr., and Carlton B. Bagby, Columbia, for respondent.

NESS, Justice.

Richland County Department of Social Services, initiated this action to terminate appellants' parental rights in their son, Paul Anthony Hills. The Family Court Judge concluded that appellants had voluntarily abandoned the child and ordered their parental rights terminated. We agree and affirm.

Paul Anthony Hills was born with a heart defect on February 23, 1970, in Columbia. On or about December, 1970, the mother deserted her husband and three children and went to New Jersey. Although the father remained in Columbia until 1974, he made no effort to make inquiry or to provide for the welfare of his child who was being cared for by an aunt.

In January of 1972, the aunt agreed to Paul's placement in the Rufus Bell Foster Home. The Family Court of Richland County assumed custody of the boy on January 30, 1975, and respondent was able to provide him with the medical treatment which his heart condition required.

Appellant Mrs. Hills returned to Columbia in June of 1973, and took her two older children with her to New Jersey. On this visit she neither saw Paul nor inquired about his welfare. Indeed, the record reveals that she has not seen the boy since December of 1970 when she deserted her family.

A trial judge is afforded a wide discretion in matters of abandonment. Bevis v. Bevis, 254 S.C. 345, 175 S.E.2d 398 (1970). The question of abandonment is largely one of intent to be determined on a case by case basis from all the facts and circumstances. Bevis, supra. While the appellants assert in their depositions that they did not intend to abandon Paul Anthony, their actions and conduct indicate otherwise.

In concluding that appellants had abandoned their child, the trial judge appeared to rely on Section 20-11-20(1) of the 1976 Code of Laws of South Carolina. That provision defines an abandoned child as follows:

"A child whose parents have willfully failed to visit or have willfully failed to support or make payments toward his support for six consecutive months immediately preceding institution of an action or proceeding to declare the child to be an abandoned child."

The record amply supports the trial judge's determination that Paul Anthony Hills was an abandoned child pursuant to Section 20-11-20(1).

Appellants also assert that the applicable Code provision is Section 20-11-20(2)(a), and argue that they have not abandoned their child under this Section. Essentially, Section 20-11-20(2)(a) provides that following a child's removal from the parents' home, if the parents make an effort to provide a suitable home for the child, or attain such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would indicate that they could provide a suitable home in the future, the child cannot be considered abandoned. Assuming, without deciding, that appellants are correct as to the applicability of Section 20-11-20(2)(a), we believe that provision likewise supports the trial judge's conclusion that Paul Anthony Hills was abandoned.

Appellants are now living together...