Saj v. Saj
Decision Date | 23 December 2015 |
Docket Number | 2015-UP-571 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | James Allan Saj and Margaret-Jean Sprigg Saj, Respondents, v. Jennifer Grey Wilson Saj, Appellant. In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2015-001329 |
Unpublished Opinion
Submitted December 8, 2015
Appeal From York County David G. Guyton, Family Court Judge
N Beth Ramsey Faulkner, of Brice Law Firm, LLC, of York, for Appellant.
Larry Dale Dove, of Barton Family Law, LLC, of Rock Hill, for Respondents.
Elizabeth Hope Rainey, of Rock Hill, for the Guardian ad Litem.
Jennifer Gray Wilson Saj (Mother) appeals the family court's termination of her parental rights to her minor daughter (Child), arguing clear and convincing evidence does not support termination of parental rights (TPR). Mother also contends the family court erred in considering the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) report and attached medical records, refusing to exclude a medical report, and refusing to exclude the GAL's testimony regarding Mother's diagnoses. We affirm.
"In appeals from the family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo." Simmons v. Simmons 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). Although this court reviews the family court's findings de novo, we are not required to ignore the fact that the family court, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility. Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C 381, 385, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011).
First, we find the family court did not err in considering the GAL report and in admitting a medical report or the GAL's testimony regarding Mother's diagnoses. Mother's argument the court erred in considering the GAL report is not preserved because it was not presented to the family court. See Srivastava v. Srivastava, 411 S.C. 481, 487, 769 S.E.2d 442, 446 (Ct. App. 2015) ; id. . Mother also did not argue to the family court the medical records the GAL discussed were hearsay; thus, her argument the records constitute inadmissible hearsay is not preserved. See id. ; id. . Additionally, we find the family court did not err in admitting Mother's October 2013 medical report because the report was self-authenticated by Mother. See Deep Keel, LLC v. Atl. Private Equity Grp., LLC, 413 S.C. 58, 64, 773 S.E.2d 607, 610 (Ct. App. 2015) . During the hearing, Mother was asked if the medical report was from a doctor visit about which she had already testified. Mother stated it was, and the family court ruled Mother had self-authenticated the document. We agree.[1] Mother's admission that the medical report was from the previously admitted doctor's visit is a "satisfactory foundation" showing the "evidence is authentic." See id. Further, we find the family court did not err in refusing to exclude the GAL's testimony about Mother's diagnoses. The GAL testified she reviewed Mother's medical records with Mother and Mother's attorney; thus, she had personal knowledge of the records. See Rule 602, SCRE () .
Second we find clear and convincing evidence supports TPR based on the statutory ground of diagnosable condition that made Mother unlikely to provide minimally acceptable care to Child. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570(6) (Supp. 2014) (). "When the diagnosable condition alleged is mental deficiency, there must be clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the parent has a diagnosed mental deficiency, and (2) this deficiency makes it unlikely that the parent will be able to provide minimally acceptable care of the child." S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Roe, 371 S.C. 450, 456, 639 S.E.2d 165, 168-69 (Ct. App. 2006). The grounds for TPR must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Parker, 336 S.C. 248, 254, 519 S.E.2d 351, 354 (Ct. App. 1999). Evidence presented at the hearing showed Mother had a diagnosable condition. Specifically, the GAL testified she and Mother discussed her medical records and she learned Mother had self-reported mood swings, bipolar disorder, and psychosis with schizophrenia during an admission to the emergency room in 2012. Evidence presented at the hearing also showed Mother's condition made it unlikely she could provide minimally acceptable care to Child. As recently as October 2014, because Mother believed someone had poisoned her, she called the non-emergency administrative 911 line six times within an hour. Additionally, a medical report noted that in October 2012, Mother presented with paranoia, hyperactivity, quick speech, and illogical thinking. The family court noted Mother presented with the same behavior during the TPR hearing, and the GAL testified Mother's grooming, speech, and memory degraded in the months leading up to the TPR hearing. Finally, Mother's text messages to Grandmother and her comment to Child about having drowned her children are additional disturbing pieces of evidence showing Mother's likely inability to properly care for Child. Accordingly, this court finds Mother...
To continue reading
Request your trial