South Carolina Dept. of Social Services v. Harper
| Decision Date | 15 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 0355,0355 |
| Citation | 284 S.C. 212,325 S.E.2d 71 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent, v. Bessie HARPER, Appellant. . Heard |
George F. Townes, Pickens, for appellant.
Tana G. Vanderbilt, Columbia, for respondent.
Timothy L. Brown, Greenville, Guardian Ad Litem.
Bessie Harper, mother of two minor children, appeals a family court order terminating her parental rights. We reverse.
The Family Court Judge terminated Ms. Harper's parental rights pursuant to then Code section 20-7-1570(2)(a) of the South Carolina Children's Code which provided:
For the purposes of this subarticle, an abandoned child shall be:
(2) When as the result of a petition filed in a court of competent jurisdiction
(a) The court has previously found a child to be, a dependent or neglected child, has removed the child from the home of the parents and placed the child in the temporary custody of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, the Children's Bureau or the licensed child-placing agency and for a period of six months the Department or agency has given consistent help to the parents in an effort to establish a suitable home for the child, and thereafter the court finds that the parents have made no effort even with help to provide a suitable home, have shown no concern as to the child's welfare and have failed to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation as would indicate that at some future date they would provide a suitable home for the child.... (Emphasis added).
Thus, three separate criteria must all be met before a child is considered abandoned within the meaning of this Code section. As to these criteria, the Family Court Judge found that Ms. Harper
... has shown no concern as to the children's welfare in that she has failed to keep appointments with Department of Social Services concerning her children and has failed to visit regularly with the children; and has failed to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation that would indicate that at some future time she would provide a suitable home for the children.
3. The Respondent Bessie Harper cannot provide a suitable home for the minor children now or in the future due to her mental limitations and due to the special needs of the minor children. Sunie Harper suffers from sickle cell anemia and needs close medical supervision which Ms. Harper cannot provide. Christine Harper is mentally retarded and needs special attention and stimulation which Ms. Harper cannot provide. (Emphasis added). 1
According to the record, the Department obtained custody of Ms. Harper's children and placed them in foster care in 1977, following investigation of neglect complaints against Ms. Harper and a finding of child neglect by the Family Court. Then in 1982, the Department brought an action to terminate Ms. Harper's parental rights and release the children for adoptive or institutional care. Christine Harper, then fourteen years old, is mentally retarded and attends a special education class and receives mental health counseling. She is also on medication for hyperactivity. Sunie Harper, then eight years old, is a victim of sickle cell anemia and is prone to have periodic crises requiring hospitalization. Her spleen has been removed and she is highly susceptible to infections.
The record also establishes that Ms. Harper, then thirty years old, has been evaluated as moderately retarded. At the time of the hearing she was unemployed (and had a history of unemployment) and did not have her own means of transportation or her own telephone, although she did have access to a neighboring relative's phone.
Further evidence in the record reveals that Ms. Harper missed numerous appointments with her Department social worker and was difficult to locate at times, often changing residence, and failed to financially contribute toward the support of the children while placed in foster care. However, there is evidence she later obtained a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joiner v. Rivas
...454 S.E.2d 335 (Ct.App.1995), Horton v. Vaughn, 309 S.C. 383, 423 S.E.2d 543 (Ct.App. 1992), and South Carolina Dep't of Social Services v. Harper, 284 S.C. 212, 325 S.E.2d 71 (Ct.App.1985). Furthermore, this Court's opinion in Bevis v. Bevis, 254 S.C. 345, 175 S.E.2d 398 (1970) was overrul......
-
Dyer v. Moss
... ... Court of Appeals of South Carolina ... Heard Nov. 21, 1984 ... Decided ... for the expenses she incurred and the services she rendered in caring for Moss's eighty-five ... ...
-
Duck v. Jenkins, 1266
...convincing evidence. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Harper, 284 S.C. 212, 325 S.E.2d 71 (Ct.App.1985). Because of a different standard of proof, we cannot see how the mother is prejudiced by the findin......
-
Abercrombie v. LaBoon
...is afforded a wide discretion, and his findings will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. S.C. Department of Social Services v. Harper, 284 S.C. 212, 325 S.E.2d 71 (Ct.App.1985). Father argues his conduct after the termination action began should be considered in determining whet......