SCDSS v. Trupia
2024-001233
| S.C. Ct. App. | Jul 10, 2025Background
- Sarah Trupia (Mother) appealed a family court order that removed her minor child from her care and awarded custody to the child's paternal grandparents.
- The Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated removal due to concerns about unsafe home conditions, Mother's alleged marijuana use, incomplete drug screens, and her volatile relationship with her own mother.
- DSS presented evidence including a broken smoke detector, blocked exits, unsafe cabinets, unprotected space heater, and photographic proof of home hazards.
- Mother admitted to attempting to falsify a drug test, engaging in physical altercations, being arrested twice for underage drinking, and not fully addressing identified safety issues.
- The family court denied Mother's motions for involuntary nonsuit and post-trial relief, and found removal was in the best interests of the child.
- At the time of appeal, the child was living with paternal grandparents and reportedly thriving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of involuntary nonsuit | Evidence insufficient as a matter of law | Substantial evidence of risk present | Denial not abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence. |
| Reliance on unfounded DSS investigation evidence | Court improperly considered such evidence | Order based on new, not unfounded, evidence | Issue not preserved for appellate review. |
| Use of confidential DJJ records & mental health | Court improperly relied on confidential/testimony | Relevant to best interest/did not rely on DJJ info | Argument not preserved; court did not err. |
| Removal in child's best interest | Removal not supported by preponderance | Home was unsafe & risk substantial | Affirmed; evidence supported danger and best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 (de novo review standard; trial court's credibility determinations honored)
- Klein v. Barrett, 427 S.C. 74 (court of appeals reviews family court findings de novo)
- Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146 (cannot raise issues on appeal not raised below)
- Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 387 S.C. 22 (failure to object waives argument)
- Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515 (abuse of discretion standard on review of evidentiary rulings)
- Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211 (standard for new trial on newly discovered evidence)