Charleston County Department of Social Services v. King
369 S.C. 96, 2006 S.C. LEXIS 174, 631 S.E.2d 239 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a termination of parental rights proceeding, the analysis is governed by statute and requires a determination of the child's best interest, which is the paramount consideration and prevails over parental rights when the two conflict. The multi-factor test from Moore v. Moore, which applies to custody disputes after a voluntary relinquishment, is inapplicable in this context.
Facts:
- In October 1999, Pamela King and her husband were arrested for passing a fraudulent check, and police found a crack pipe in King's purse.
- Their three children, including two-year-old Cody, were taken into emergency protective custody by the Charleston County Department of Social Services (DSS).
- Upon removal, Cody was diagnosed with psychosocial dwarfism, an environmentally-induced condition caused by a lack of appropriate nurturing.
- King was given a treatment plan, but she had sporadic compliance and began using cocaine from October 2000 to June 2001.
- After being in other placements, Cody was placed in the pre-adoptive home of the Kendles in October 2001.
- By September 2002, King had made significant progress, completing substance abuse treatment and most other aspects of her treatment plan.
- DSS returned King's two older children, Ashley and Casey, to her care in November 2002 because she was deemed fit.
- By the time of the final hearing, Cody had been with the Kendles for over a year, referred to them as 'mom and dad,' was thriving in their care, and had no memory of King as his mother.
Procedural Posture:
- The Charleston County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a termination of parental rights (TPR) action against Pamela King in family court.
- The family court (court of first instance) terminated King's parental rights to her son, Cody, finding that statutory grounds were met and termination was in the child's best interests.
- King appealed the family court's decision to the South Carolina Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the family court, ruling that it was in Cody's best interests to preserve King's parental rights.
- DSS and the pre-adoptive parents, the Kendles, (as Petitioners) sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision from the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
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 termination of parental rights case, does the best interest of the child standard require termination when the child has spent a significant portion of his life in a stable, pre-adoptive home, has bonded with that family, and has no memory of the biological parent, even if the parent has made substantial rehabilitative progress?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Moore
Yes, the best interest of the child requires termination under these circumstances. The Court of Appeals erred by applying the factors from Moore v. Moore, as those factors are designed for custody disputes following a parent's voluntary relinquishment of a child, not for involuntary termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings, which are governed by statute. The governing statute requires that if a statutory ground for termination is met, the court must then determine if termination is in the child's best interest. Critically, the statute mandates that when the child's interest and parental rights conflict, the child's interest shall prevail. Here, Cody was thriving in the Kendles' stable home, had bonded with them as his parents, and had no memory of his biological family. Removing him from the only family he knew would be traumatic. Therefore, despite the mother's significant rehabilitation, Cody's best interests are served by terminating her parental rights to allow for his adoption by the Kendles.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal distinction between custody disputes and termination of parental rights (TPR) actions in South Carolina. It establishes that a parent's successful rehabilitation, while commendable, does not guarantee reunification if, during the parent's absence, the child has formed strong psychological bonds with a new caregiver and no longer remembers the biological parent. The case prioritizes a child's need for stability and continuity over a parent's rights, making the child's current psychological and emotional state a dispositive factor in the 'best interest' analysis. This precedent makes it more difficult for parents to reclaim children who have spent their formative years in foster care, even if the parents have fully complied with court-ordered treatment plans.
