South Carolina Department of Social Services v. M.R.C.L.
701 S.E.2d 757, 390 S.C. 329, 2010 S.C. App. LEXIS 207 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To terminate parental rights for willful failure to visit or support, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct evinced a settled purpose to forego parental duties, which requires a subjective analysis of the parent's intent and circumstances. When evaluating failure to support, contributions must be measured against the parent's actual financial means, and non-monetary contributions of necessities can be sufficient to defeat a finding of willfulness for an indigent parent.
Facts:
- On May 25, 2007, the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) removed a one-year-old Child from the home of M.R.C.L. (Mother) and R.L. (Father) after the parents tested positive for cocaine.
- Mother was a homemaker with no income, suffered from a degenerative disk disease, and was on probation for an unrelated assault charge.
- The family's sole consistent income was Father's Social Security disability benefits of approximately $689 per month.
- Over the seventeen months following the Child's removal, Mother visited the Child in foster care fourteen times; a court order had prevented her from visiting for two or three months during this period.
- During visits, Mother and Father provided the Child with snacks, drinks, toys, lotion for a skin condition, antibiotics, food, clothes, diapers, and wipes.
- Mother unsuccessfully applied for approximately thirty jobs and briefly participated in vocational rehabilitation programs but did not complete them.
- In anticipation of the Child's potential return, Mother prepared a bedroom by painting, installing curtains and carpet, and arranging furniture.
Procedural Posture:
- Following the Child's removal, the family court, as the court of first instance, ordered Mother and Father to complete a treatment plan.
- In April 2008, the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a complaint in family court to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of Mother and Father.
- After a hearing, the family court issued an order terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights on the statutory grounds of willful failure to visit and willful failure to support.
- Mother, as Appellant, appealed the family court's decision to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate 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:
Does a parent's conduct constitute 'willful failure to visit' or 'willful failure to support' sufficient to terminate parental rights when the parent, who is unemployed with no income, visits the child approximately once per month and provides non-monetary items like snacks, clothes, and medicine during those visits?
Opinions:
Majority - Konduros, J.
No. The parent's conduct does not constitute willful failure to visit or support because the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's actions manifested a conscious indifference to her parental duties. Regarding visitation, the record showing fourteen visits in fifteen months without details on missed visits or other circumstances is insufficient to prove willfulness. Regarding support, the statute requires evaluating contributions 'according to the parent’s means.' Given the Mother's lack of income and extremely limited means, her non-monetary contributions of necessities were material and defeated the claim that she had a settled purpose to forego her parental duties.
Dissenting - Williams, J.
Yes. The parent's conduct does constitute willful failure to support because her choice to remain unemployed, despite a past work history and available job training, demonstrates a settled purpose to forego her parental duty to provide support. The dissent argues that her contributions were not material and that her lack of employment was a choice, which makes her failure to provide financial support willful. The evidence of her searching for work was 'scant and contradictory,' and her actions showed she had neither the desire nor the intention to provide financial support for the child.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to terminate parental rights, particularly for indigent parents. It clarifies that 'willfulness' is a subjective standard requiring proof of a conscious intent to abandon parental duties, rather than an objective failure to meet certain benchmarks for visitation or support. By emphasizing that a parent's contributions must be evaluated 'according to their means,' the court solidifies protection for parents who lack financial resources but demonstrate parental concern through non-monetary actions. This precedent will require lower courts and social service agencies to develop a more detailed factual record showing a parent's specific intent and indifference before seeking termination on these grounds.
