Paparella v. Paparella
340 S.C. 186, 2000 S.C. App. LEXIS 73, 531 S.E.2d 297 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In child custody determinations, the paramount and controlling factor is the best interests of the child, which is evaluated by considering the totality of the circumstances unique to each case. A parent's moral conduct, such as a post-separation affair, is a relevant factor only to the extent it has a direct or indirect adverse effect on the child's welfare.
Facts:
- John F. Paparella, Jr. (father) and Ami Paparella (mother) married in September 1992, had three children, and separated in May 1996.
- During the marriage, both parents worked as pharmacists and arranged their work schedules to ensure one parent was always home with the children, eliminating the need for daycare.
- Over a year after the parties separated, the mother engaged in an affair with a paramour.
- The mother's affair involved one or two overnight stays with the paramour at times when the children were not present.
- The father created a videotape from footage shot by the mother, which he contended was evidence of her lack of concern for the children's safety and welfare.
- Both the father and mother presented conflicting testimony from expert witnesses regarding which parent was better suited for custody.
Procedural Posture:
- John F. Paparella, Jr. (father) filed a complaint in family court seeking custody of the parties' three children.
- Ami Paparella (mother) filed a separate complaint in family court seeking a divorce based on one year's continuous separation.
- The father filed a counterclaim for divorce based on the mother's alleged adultery and requested that the two actions be consolidated.
- The family court consolidated the custody and divorce actions.
- The family court (trial court) awarded the mother a divorce and sole custody of the children, and granted the father a specific visitation schedule.
- The father (appellant) appealed the family court's custody and visitation order to the court of appeals (this court).
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 children to the mother after finding that her post-separation affair did not adversely affect the children and that, under the totality of the circumstances, this arrangement was in the children's best interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the family court did not abuse its discretion by awarding custody to the mother. The best interests of the child is the paramount factor in a custody dispute, and an appellate court must give deference to the trial judge's evaluation of witness credibility. The court found that the father failed to show any deleterious effect on the children resulting from the mother's post-separation affair, which is a prerequisite for such conduct to be a deciding factor in custody. The trial court properly viewed the father's videotape evidence and concluded it did not rise to the level of neglect or unfitness. By considering the totality of the circumstances, including the fitness of both loving parents, conflicting expert testimony, and the guardian ad litem's recommendation, the family court acted within its discretion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the substantial deference appellate courts grant to family court judges' findings in custody cases, especially concerning the assessment of witness credibility. It solidifies the principle that a parent's moral conduct, like a post-separation affair, is legally insignificant in a custody determination unless there is specific evidence of a negative impact on the child. The decision champions a holistic, fact-sensitive 'totality of the circumstances' approach, preventing any single factor from being dispositive and reaffirming that custody is not a tool to reward or punish parental behavior.
