South Carolina Dept. of Social Services v. Broome

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtFINNEY; GREGORY
Citation307 S.C. 48,413 S.E.2d 835
PartiesSOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent, v. Cherry Diann Kampf BROOME and Henry Allen Broome, Defendants, Of Whom Cherry Diann Kampf Broome is Appellant. In the Interest of Savannah Joann BROOME, D.O.B.:
Decision Date16 December 1985

Page 835

413 S.E.2d 835
307 S.C. 48
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent,
v.
Cherry Diann Kampf BROOME and Henry Allen Broome, Defendants,
Of Whom Cherry Diann Kampf Broome is Appellant.
In the Interest of Savannah Joann BROOME, D.O.B.: 12/16/85.
No. 23561.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Jan. 21, 1991.
Decided Jan. 13, 1992.

Page 836

[307 S.C. 49] J. Cordell Maddox, Jr. of Jones, Spitz, Moorhead, Baird and Maddox, Anderson, for appellant.

Page 837

Tana G. Vanderbilt of the South Carolina Dept. of Social Services, Columbia, for respondent.

Sharon Marshall, Guardian Ad Litem, Anderson, for Savannah Joann Broome.

FINNEY, Justice:

Appellant Cherry Diann Kampf Broome appeals a family court order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, Savannah Joann Broome, born December 16, 1985. We affirm.

Savannah was taken into protective custody by the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) two days after birth upon recommendation of the Anderson County Mental Health Center because of "threat of harm" to the child. Savannah[307 S.C. 50] has remained in foster care in the same home since December 30, 1985.

DSS commenced an action on December 18, 1985, seeking termination of the parental rights of appellant and Henry Allen Broome, Sr., (the father) to Savannah and two other minor siblings under The Child Protection Act. S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-736, et seq., (1976). Pursuant to a temporary custody hearing on December 31, 1985, custody was continued with DSS pending a further hearing.

After the removal of Savannah, the appellant was treated for chronic schizophrenia and hospitalized on several occasions. In 1986, DSS developed a treatment plan requiring that the appellant 1) attend weekly sessions of Parents Anonymous; 2) maintain a suitable residence; 3) visit with Savannah on a biweekly basis; 4) pay $50 per month child support; 1 and 5) follow through with mental health treatment, including taking medication on a regular basis, attending biweekly counseling at the Mental Health Center, and seeing Dr. Edwin Blanton each month to monitor her medication.

A hearing was held on February 25, 1988, at which the family court ratified an agreement between the parties providing for the appellant to comply with the treatment plan developed by DSS, dismissed the termination action without prejudice, and ordered periodic judicial review. Pursuant to Section 20-7-766, judicial review hearings were held on March 28, 1988; August 30, 1988; and September 7, 1989.

This action for termination of parental rights to Savannah was instituted on May 19, 1989. A guardian-ad-litem was appointed for Savannah, and a guardian-ad-litem/attorney was appointed for the appellant. Thereafter, appellant's attorney made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact her to discuss the case. Appellant did not contact her attorney or respond to his attempts to communicate with her. On November 8, 1989, appellant's attorney filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. Counsel's motion to be relieved was heard prior to the start of the termination hearing on November 21, 1989, and denied by the court. Appellant's counsel then moved for a continuance on the ground that counsel had no opportunity to meet with the appellant and was not adequately prepared to [307 S.C. 51] proceed. The family court declined to grant a continuance and the hearing proceeded.

As a result of the termination hearing, the trial judge, inter alia, terminated the parental rights of appellant and the father to Savannah and awarded custody to DSS. 2 With regard to appellant, the family court's order of December 1, 1989, sets forth the following findings as the basis for its ruling.

1. The appellant has willfully failed to support or make a material contribution to the care of Savannah.

2. Savannah has lived outside appellant's home for a period of at least six months after being removed pursuant to Section 20-7-736; and that despite a reasonable and meaningful effort by DSS to offer appropriate rehabilitative services to the appellant, she had failed to remedy the condition which caused Savannah's removal by:

Page 838

(a) Failing to visit Savannah as scheduled;

(b) Attending only three sessions of Parents Anonymous;

(c) Failing to maintain herself on medication and failing to follow through with Mental Health Center Appointments, resulting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
95 practice notes
  • Couple v. Girl, Opinion No. 27148
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 26, 2012
    ...conscious indifference to the rights of the child to receive support and consortium from the parent." S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 53, 413 S.E.2d 835, 839 (1992).52 Page 48 Based on my de novo review of the evidence, Father's failure to visit Baby Girl was willful. Fath......
  • Couple v. Baby Girl, No. 27148.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 22, 2012
    ...conscious indifference to the rights of the child to receive support and consortium from the parent.” S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 53, 413 S.E.2d 835, 839 (1992).52 [731 S.E.2d 578] [398 S.C. 677]Based on my de novo review of the evidence, Father's failure to visit Baby......
  • Hooper v. Rockwell, No. 24907.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 22, 1999
    ...making this determination, which must be established by clear and convincing evidence. South Carolina Dep't of Social Services v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 413 S.E.2d 835 (1992). "Conduct of the parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego parental duties may fairly be characterized as `will......
  • Chris v. Jennifer J., No. 27251.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 8, 2013
    ...of each case, and the family court judge has wide discretion in making the determination. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 52, 413 S.E.2d 835, 838 (1992). While the judge has wide discretion, willfulness must be established by clear and convincing evidence. S.C. Dep't of So......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
95 cases
  • Couple v. Girl, Opinion No. 27148
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 26, 2012
    ...conscious indifference to the rights of the child to receive support and consortium from the parent." S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 53, 413 S.E.2d 835, 839 (1992).52 Page 48 Based on my de novo review of the evidence, Father's failure to visit Baby Girl was willful. Fath......
  • Couple v. Baby Girl, No. 27148.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 22, 2012
    ...conscious indifference to the rights of the child to receive support and consortium from the parent.” S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 53, 413 S.E.2d 835, 839 (1992).52 [731 S.E.2d 578] [398 S.C. 677]Based on my de novo review of the evidence, Father's failure to visit Baby......
  • Hooper v. Rockwell, No. 24907.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 22, 1999
    ...making this determination, which must be established by clear and convincing evidence. South Carolina Dep't of Social Services v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 413 S.E.2d 835 (1992). "Conduct of the parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego parental duties may fairly be characterized as `will......
  • Chris v. Jennifer J., No. 27251.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 8, 2013
    ...of each case, and the family court judge has wide discretion in making the determination. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 52, 413 S.E.2d 835, 838 (1992). While the judge has wide discretion, willfulness must be established by clear and convincing evidence. S.C. Dep't of So......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT