Tranfield v. Tranfield
| Decision Date | 01 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2018-UP-348 |
| Parties | Frederick Charles Tranfield, Appellant, v. Lilly Sophia Tranfield, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2015-002357 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Heard June 6, 2018
Appeal From Charleston County Daniel E. Martin, Jr., Family Court Judge
Chris Paton, of Chris Paton LLC, of Mount Pleasant, and Courtney Wall Kerce, of Payne Law Firm, LLC, of Daniel Island, for Appellant.
Gregory Samuel Forman, of Gregory S. Forman, PC, of Charleston, for Respondent.
Frederick Tranfield (Father) appeals the ruling of the family court awarding custody of his two minor children to their Mother Lilly Tranfield. Father argues the family court erred in: (1) awarding sole custody of the children to Mother and restricting his visitation; (2) delegating authority to his therapist to determine visitation restrictions; (3) ordering he undergo a psychosexual evaluation; (4) awarding alimony (5) incorrectly apportioning the parties' debts and assets; (6) awarding Mother attorney's fees; (7) restraining his speech; and (8) ordering support to be paid through income withholding. We affirm as modified.
Father and Mother met in California and married in May 2002 in Hawaii. They have two children-a girl (Daughter) born in August 2003 and a boy (Son) born in May 2005. The children were born in Japan and the parties adopted many Japanese cultural practices that they continued to abide by once they returned to the United States, including communal bathing and sleeping in the same room. The family moved to Charleston South Carolina, in 2008. Once in Charleston, Father became the breadwinner, and Mother stayed at home and taught both children. Father worked as a freelance web designer eventually working for Blue Acorn.[1]
In September 2012, Father peered over Mother's shoulder and noticed Mother emailing a friend about her "crush" on Daughter's ballet teacher.[2] The crush did not develop into anything further. Father confronted Mother about the email, and the two attended counseling in an attempt to save the marriage. But counseling failed to mend the growing chasm dividing the family due, in large part, to Father's bizarre behavior. As an example, Father brought the family's outdoor security camera indoors to film Mother over fears of "covert behavior" in October 2012, for a period of three to four months.[3] Mother eventually expressed displeasure being filmed and asked Father to stop. Father complied but resumed filming one week later. He stopped filming when a friend indicated the behavior was "creepy." Later, in December 2012, an altercation occurred between Mother and Father, terminating when Father forcefully grabbed Mother's arm and stated they were going to get a divorce. Mother fled and hid in the bathroom, while the children cried. In an effort to resolve the dispute, Father required the family to hold hands in a circle and told the children Mother was mentally ill.
Mother eventually asked Father for a divorce in January 2013. In early 2013, based on the advice of counsel and a therapist, the family ceased communal bathing and sleeping as well as using the bathroom with the door open. The couple continued to live together, in separate rooms, because Mother did not have money to find another place to live. After Mother asked for a divorce, Father's relationship with Son remained mostly normal, but his relationship with Daughter became strained- she became rigid and angry towards him. In March 2013, while attempting to ease Daughter's tantrum, Father pinned her to her bed and would not let her up until she calmed down. Mother was present and filmed the event on her phone. Around the same time, Father emailed the family's therapist, admitting making many parenting mistakes. In the email, Father indicated he had told the children the following inappropriate information: Mother had a mental sickness, Mother's father went to jail for beating Mother's sister, Mother's father abused Father, and Mother's sister killed herself. Father also stated he had suggested taking away Daughter's dance classes as a consequence of her acting out towards him.
The parties finally separated in June 2013 and have lived in separate households since. In July 2013, shortly after Mother moved out, Father filed a complaint against Mother seeking, among other things, temporary relief, sole custody of Daughter and Son, child support, equitable division, and attorney's fees. Mother answered Father's suit and counterclaimed, also seeking sole custody of the children, child support, alimony, equitable division, and attorney's fees.
In lieu of a hearing on Father's motion for temporary relief, the parties submitted an agreement resolving the temporary issues, which the family court adopted on September 16, 2013. The parties temporarily agreed to share joint custody of the children, with Mother having primary physical and legal custody. Although Mother retained ultimate decision-making authority, Mother agreed to consult Father regarding major decisions affecting the children. Father had custody of Son on alternating weeks, whereas Father had custody of Daughter only every other weekend. The children were also scheduled to attend public school so Mother could seek employment. Additionally, the parties agreed Father would pay Mother $2, 600 in unallocated support every month beginning in August 2013 until the family court could determine alimony and child support after a final hearing.
The agreement also set a schedule the parties were to adhere to prior to reaching any final agreement regarding custody and visitation-providing dates for the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem and mandatory mediation. While the parties attempted to resolve their disputes, Father's bizarre behavior continued. In October 2013, in response to Daughter's behavior towards him, Father told her he was concerned she would grow up to cut herself, as in self-mutilation. Father's visitation with Daughter was suspended for three months as a result. Another incident occurred after visitation was reinstated. While disciplining Daughter, Father forcefully grabbed her arm and pulled her up the stairs. When Daughter told Father he was hurting her, Father called Daughter a liar. As a result, a no-contact order was issued, restraining the parties from physically disciplining the children.
Mother and Father were unable to resolve their disputes. After failed mediation, multiple increases in Guardian ad Litem fees, a Rule to Show Cause, and other incidents of Father's bizarre behavior, the family court conducted a five-day final hearing in December 2014. In its order, the family court equitably divided the parties' assets and debts, granted Mother spousal support, and gave Mother sole custody of the children. The family court granted Father supervised visitation and required him to pay child support, undergo a psychosexual evaluation, and pay Mother's attorney's fees. A divorce was granted on the ground of separation for one year. Father filed a motion for reconsideration, which the family court denied. Subsequently, upon motion by Mother, the clerk of court issued an income withholding order to garnish Father's wages to pay his support obligations. Father appealed both the final divorce order and income withholding order, and the appeals were consolidated.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo . . . ." Stoney v. Stoney, Op. No. 27758 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed April 18, 2018) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 16 at 11); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709 S.E.2d 650, 652 (2011). In a de novo review, the appellate court is free to make its own findings of fact but must remember the family court was in a better position to make credibility determinations. Lewis, 392 S.C. at 385, 709 S.E.2d at 651-52. "Consistent with this de novo review, the appellant retains the burden to show that the family court's findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence; otherwise, the findings will be affirmed." Ashburn v. Rogers, 420 S.C. 411, 416, 803 S.E.2d 469, 471 (Ct. App. 2017). When the "evidence is disputed, the appellate court may adhere to the findings of the [family court, which] saw and heard the witnesses." Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 10, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996). "On the other hand, evidentiary and procedural rulings of the family court are reviewed for an abuse of discretion." Urban v. Kerscher, Op. No. 5560 (S.C. Ct. App. filed May 23, 2018) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 21 at 90).
The family court awarded sole custody of the children to Mother granting Father supervised visitation. Father argues the legislature's amendment of the Children's Code-specifically, section 63-15-230 of the South Carolina Code (2012)-eliminated the "exceptional circumstances" requirement for...
To continue reading
Request your trial