Chastain v. Chastain
381 S.C. 295, 2009 S.C. App. LEXIS 9, 672 S.E.2d 108 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a child custody determination, a parent's immoral conduct, such as adultery, is legally significant only if it is shown to be detrimental to the child's welfare. An exception exists for 'flagrant promiscuity,' which is presumed to be detrimental, but this standard applies only to glaringly bad and outrageous conduct.
Facts:
- Chastity Chastain (Wife) and Tyson Chastain (Husband) were married and had three children.
- During the marriage, Husband was fired from his job as a golf professional for stealing $5,000, which his parents later repaid.
- In early 2005, Husband suspected Wife was having an affair with a co-worker, Steve Vargas, and hired a private investigator to confirm his suspicions.
- In July 2005, Husband left the marital home, taking the children to his parents' house, and the parties separated.
- In October 2005, Wife began an extramarital affair with another co-worker, Lee Dotson.
- A physical altercation occurred at a child's dance recital involving Husband, Wife, Dotson, and Husband's mother, resulting in the arrest of all four for disorderly conduct.
- Eight months after the separation, Husband began a sexual relationship with Dotson's estranged wife, Beth.
- Wife and Dotson later followed Husband and Beth to Beth's house, threw a brick through the window, kicked in the door, and took pictures of the couple inside.
Procedural Posture:
- Tyson Chastain (Husband) filed an action in family court against Chastity Chastain (Wife) seeking a divorce and custody of their three children.
- The family court granted the parties a divorce on the grounds of living separate and apart for one year.
- The family court awarded custody of all three children to Husband, finding that Wife had engaged in 'flagrant promiscuity.'
- The family court also ordered Wife to pay $2,500 of Husband's private investigator fees.
- Wife (Appellant) appealed the family court's order to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, with Husband 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 child custody determination, are the best interests of the children served by awarding custody to the father based on the totality of the circumstances, even if the family court erroneously based its decision on a finding that the mother engaged in 'flagrant promiscuity'?
Opinions:
Majority - Hearn, C.J.
Yes, the best interests of the children are served by awarding custody to the Husband. The family court erred in finding the Wife's conduct rose to the level of 'flagrant promiscuity' and in considering her adultery in the best interest analysis, because her conduct was not shown to detrimentally affect the children. However, conducting a new analysis of the remaining factors, the custody award is affirmed. The evidence shows Husband provides a more stable and disciplined environment, as observed by the Guardian ad Litem. Furthermore, Husband lives in a superior school district, maintains a more flexible work schedule to care for the children, and has the assistance of his retired mother. The Wife's home presented safety risks and she struggled with consistent discipline. Based on the totality of these circumstances, awarding custody to Husband serves the children's best interests.
Analysis:
This decision refines the standard for 'flagrant promiscuity' in South Carolina, establishing it as a narrow exception for extreme cases and not merely for multiple adulterous affairs. The case demonstrates that an appellate court can affirm a trial court's ultimate decision, such as a custody award, even while finding its legal reasoning to be erroneous. It reinforces the modern trend in family law to de-emphasize parental moral failings unless a tangible negative impact on the child is proven, focusing instead on practical factors like safety, education, discipline, and parental availability under the 'best interests of the child' standard.
