Divine v. Robbins
683 S.E.2d 286, 385 S.C. 23, 2009 S.C. App. LEXIS 367 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In child custody disputes, the controlling consideration is the child's best interests, which is determined by the family court's evaluation of the totality of the circumstances. An appellate court will afford great deference to the family court's findings, especially regarding witness credibility, and will not disturb the custody award if it is supported by the evidence.
Facts:
- Josette Robbins (Mother) and John Divine (Father) were in a romantic relationship from 1998 to 2002 but never married or cohabitated.
- The relationship deteriorated due to what Father described as Mother's erratic behavior, jealousy, and physical violence.
- After the relationship ended, Mother became pregnant, and their Daughter was born on May 4, 2003.
- Despite Father's efforts to be involved in Daughter's life, Mother restricted his access, allowing visitation only in her home and at her convenience.
- Mother informed Father that the only way he could see Daughter regularly was if he agreed to marry her.
- When Father's attorney attempted to establish a formal visitation schedule and child support, Mother responded that she would only permit visitation if ordered by a judge.
- Mother then denied Father all visitation with Daughter for a period of five weeks to pressure him to agree to a schedule on her terms.
- Over time, Father became increasingly concerned about Mother's psychological state and its effect on her ability to parent Daughter.
Procedural Posture:
- John Divine (Father) filed an action in family court against Josette Robbins (Mother) on November 17, 2003, requesting joint custody and visitation.
- The parties agreed to give Mother temporary custody pending a final hearing.
- Mother filed an answer and counterclaim requesting sole custody, child support, and attorney's fees.
- Father later amended his complaint to request sole custody and a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation of Mother, which the court granted.
- After a seven-day final hearing, the family court issued a final order awarding sole custody of the Daughter to Father.
- Josette Robbins (Mother), as appellant, appealed the family court's order to the Court of Appeals 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:
Did the family court abuse its discretion by awarding sole custody of the child to Father based on a determination that it was in the child's best interests, after considering the totality of the circumstances, including Mother's psychological state and inability to co-parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Geathers, J.
No, the family court did not abuse its discretion. In all child custody controversies, the paramount consideration is the child's welfare and best interests, which requires the court to evaluate the totality of the circumstances unique to the case. The family court conducted a thorough analysis, making in-depth findings on numerous relevant factors, including parental fitness, history of domestic violence, the psychological state of the parents, and each parent's willingness to facilitate a relationship between the child and the other parent. The court properly considered the expert testimony of Dr. Saylor, who diagnosed Mother with a narcissistic personality disorder and opined that she was unable to maintain a cooperative co-parenting relationship. The family court, as the trier of fact, is in the best position to assess witness credibility and determine the weight afforded to expert testimony, and its decision was well-supported by the record.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the substantial discretion granted to family courts in making custody determinations based on the 'best interests of the child' standard. It underscores the principle of appellate deference, particularly concerning findings of fact and credibility assessments made by the trial judge who directly observes the witnesses. The case also illustrates the significant weight that can be given to expert psychological evaluations in assessing a parent's fitness and capacity for cooperative co-parenting, which can be a decisive factor in awarding sole custody. Future litigants in similar custody disputes are reminded that a parent's conduct and willingness to foster a relationship with the other parent are critical components of the best interests analysis.
