Brown v. Brown
2004 S.C. App. LEXIS 346, 606 S.E.2d 785, 362 S.C. 85 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a child custody dispute between two fit parents, the paramount and controlling factor is the best interests of the children, which is determined by evaluating the totality of the circumstances, including each parent's character, fitness, temperament, and ability to provide a stable environment.
Facts:
- George C. Brown (Father) and Diane Q. Brown (Mother) were married in 1991 and had three children.
- During the marriage, Father engaged in an adulterous relationship, which he testified had ended by the time of the custody hearing.
- The parties separated on October 30, 2000, after which Father moved in with his parents.
- Testimony from school employees and a babysitter indicated that Mother was frequently late bringing the children to school and picking them up, and sometimes failed to pack their lunches.
- School employees also testified that the children were better groomed and more appropriately clothed for the weather when in Father's care.
- Several witnesses described Mother as having a poor temperament, stating she lost her temper and cursed at her daughter.
- Mother lost her job at a hospital due to excessive tardiness and absenteeism.
Procedural Posture:
- Diane Q. Brown (Mother) initiated divorce proceedings against George C. Brown (Father) in the family court, which is the trial court in this matter.
- The parties settled all property and financial issues, leaving child custody as the only major contested issue.
- The family court conducted a trial and issued an order awarding custody of the three minor children to Father.
- Mother, as the appellant, appealed the family court's custody order to the Court of Appeals, with Father as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a custody dispute between two parents, does a family court err by awarding custody to one parent based on factors such as temperament and attentiveness to the children's daily needs, even when the other parent is not found to be unfit and the children express a preference for that other parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, J.
No, the family court did not err in awarding custody of the minor children to Father. The paramount consideration in any custody dispute is the best interests of the children, assessed by looking at the totality of the circumstances. The family court properly balanced Father's past adulterous affair against Mother's shortcomings, which included consistent tardiness with the children, inattentiveness to their daily needs like lunches, and a poor temperament. The court found substantial evidence that Father provided a more stable and suitable environment and possessed a preferable temperament for raising the children. While the children expressed a preference for Mother, their young ages (10, 6, and 6) meant their preference was only one factor and was not determinative when weighed against the court's overall assessment of their best interests. The court also rejected the argument that awarding custody to Father was a 'de facto' award to the grandparents, holding that a parent's choice to live with and receive support from their own parents can be a positive factor in the custody analysis.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the 'best interests of the child' standard is a highly fact-specific inquiry that allows courts to look beyond a single moral failing, such as adultery, to assess a parent's overall fitness. It clarifies that practical, day-to-day parenting abilities, stability, and temperament can outweigh past marital misconduct. The case also provides guidance on the weight to be given to a child's preference, affirming that while it must be considered, it is not controlling, especially with younger children. The court's explicit rejection of a 'de facto custody' argument is significant, as it prevents parents from being penalized for relying on the support of extended family, which is a common reality for many single parents.
