Loe v. MOTHER, FATHER, AND BERKELEY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
382 S.C. 457, 675 S.E.2d 807, 2009 S.C. App. LEXIS 89 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground. The ground based on a child being in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months is not met when the parent has substantially complied with reunification plans and the delay is primarily attributable to the state agency, not the parent's actions or unfitness.
Facts:
- Mother and Father had three children, including twins, Daughter and Son.
- At six months old, Daughter sustained severe, non-accidental head injuries, often associated with 'Shaken Baby Syndrome,' while reportedly in Father's care.
- Mother noticed Daughter's symptoms but waited two days before seeking medical attention.
- Both Daughter and Son had significant medical needs; Daughter was developmentally delayed from her injuries, and Son had a brain shunt and underdeveloped lungs.
- Following the children's removal, Mother divorced Father and obtained a restraining order against him.
- Mother substantially complied with two different DSS placement plans by maintaining employment, paying child support, completing parenting assessments, and consistently visiting her children.
- Six months after the initial removal, DSS returned the oldest child, Sister, to Mother's care, where she remained.
- Overnight visits with the twins were briefly suspended when Mother reported feeling overwhelmed but later resumed and continued without interruption for an extended period.
Procedural Posture:
- After Daughter's injuries were reported, law enforcement took the twins into emergency protective custody.
- Following a probable cause hearing, the family court (trial court) granted the Department of Social Services (DSS) custody of all three of Mother's children.
- The family court approved multiple placement plans for Mother and held several permanency planning hearings, extending foster care due to the children's medical needs despite Mother's compliance.
- The Foster Parents filed private actions in family court seeking to terminate Mother's parental rights and adopt the children.
- The family court consolidated the Foster Parents' actions and held a multi-day hearing.
- The family court issued an order terminating Mother's parental rights, granting the Foster Parents' adoption petitions, and ordering Mother to pay a portion of the guardian ad litem's fees.
- Mother (Appellant) appealed the family court's order to the Court of Appeals (the court issuing this opinion), with the Foster Parents as Respondents.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory ground for terminating parental rights based on a child being in foster care for fifteen of the last twenty-two months apply when the parent has substantially complied with reunification plans and the state agency admits its own delays caused the extended foster care placement?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The statutory ground for terminating parental rights based on the length of time a child is in foster care does not apply where a parent has substantially complied with reunification requirements and the state agency's own delays caused the child to remain in foster care. Parents possess a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children, which requires that state-caused delays not be used as the basis for terminating those rights. The court found no clear and convincing evidence for any of the statutory grounds for termination. Mother had remedied the conditions that led to the removal by divorcing the abusive Father and had complied with all DSS plans. Most significantly, DSS itself opposed the termination and admitted that its own 'shortcomings' and administrative delays were the reason the children remained in care for fifteen of the last twenty-two months. It would be fundamentally unfair to punish a parent for delays caused by the state. Therefore, this statutory ground was not met.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights (TPR) are not to be applied mechanically, particularly the time-based ground of a child being in foster care for 'fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months.' The court establishes an important equitable consideration, holding that this ground cannot be invoked when the state agency, rather than the parent, is responsible for the delay. This precedent protects fit parents from losing their children due to bureaucratic inefficiency and underscores that the focus of a TPR proceeding must be on parental unfitness, not merely the passage of time. The ruling serves as a check on the state's power and clarifies that the fundamental right to parent cannot be abrogated by the state's own procedural failings.
