South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Parker
1999 S.C. App. LEXIS 104, 519 S.E.2d 351, 336 S.C. 248 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's incarceration resulting from their own voluntary criminal conduct does not constitute a reasonable excuse for the willful failure to visit or support a child, and such failure can serve as grounds for the termination of parental rights.
Facts:
- Rico O’Brien Taylor (Father) and Tashanda Nicole Parker (Mother) are the parents of Deborah, born in May 1994.
- At birth, Deborah tested positive for syphilis due to Mother's condition, and Mother had a history of drug use and failure to engage with treatment services.
- In July 1994, Mother was confirmed to be using cocaine in the presence of her children.
- Also in July 1994, Father was arrested on drug charges and has been continuously incarcerated since that time.
- Prior to his incarceration, Father had seen Deborah only once when she was two months old and had never provided any financial support for her care.
- In August 1994, due to neglect by Mother and unsanitary living conditions, Deborah was taken into protective custody by law enforcement.
- While incarcerated, Father earned between $30 and $35 per month, which he spent on personal items like cigarettes and hygiene products rather than contributing to his child's support.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a summons and complaint in the Family Court seeking to terminate the parental rights of Rico O’Brien Taylor (Father).
- Father, who was incarcerated, was served with the complaint and subsequently filed an answer denying that his rights should be terminated.
- The Family Court held a termination of parental rights (TPR) hearing.
- After the hearing, the Family Court issued an order terminating Father's parental rights, finding he had willfully failed to visit and support his daughter and that termination was in the child's best interest.
- Father (Appellant) appealed the Family Court's termination 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:
Does a parent's incarceration, resulting from their own voluntary criminal actions, excuse their willful failure to visit or support a child, thus preventing the termination of parental rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, J.
No, a parent's incarceration resulting from their own voluntary criminal actions does not excuse their willful failure to visit or support a child. The court affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights, holding that his failure to visit and support Deborah was willful under the statute. The court reasoned that while incarceration itself is not a statutory ground for termination, it can be considered in determining whether the failure was willful. Citing Hamby v. Hamby, the court explained that any difficulties Father experienced were a direct result of his 'voluntary course of lawlessness.' His conduct demonstrated a 'conscious indifference' to his parental duties. The court found that Father made only minimal efforts to contact Deborah and used his prison earnings for personal comfort rather than support. Ultimately, the court concluded that the child's best interest is the paramount consideration, and Deborah's life should not be put on hold until Father's eventual release from prison.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that parental rights are not absolute and are contingent upon the fulfillment of parental duties. It clarifies that while imprisonment is a significant barrier, it does not absolve a parent of their responsibilities. The ruling establishes that courts can attribute the inability to parent during incarceration to the parent's pre-incarceration voluntary criminal acts, thereby satisfying the 'willfulness' requirement for termination. This precedent puts incarcerated parents on notice that they must make active, demonstrable efforts to maintain a relationship and provide support, however minimal, to protect their parental rights. It influences future termination cases by focusing the 'willfulness' inquiry on the parent's choices that led to imprisonment, rather than treating imprisonment as an automatic excuse.
