South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Sarah W.
402 S.C. 324
| S.C. | 2013Background
- Mother is biological parent of two children removed from home in 2007 due to abysmal living conditions and lack of suitable housing.
- DSS obtained emergency custody; placement plan required Mother to secure employment, housing, and address health and parenting issues; Father also involved.
- Permanency plans and hearings through 2008-2009 evaluated Mother’s and Father’s progress; DSS recommended continued foster care and investigations into unaddressed concerns.
- DSS uncovered a prior molestation order against Father and potential substance issues; court considered but did not immediately return children to Mother.
- In 2009-2010, DSS moved to terminate rights under §63-7-2570(8) (15/22 months in foster care) after concluding parents failed to fully remediate issues; court found grounds and best interests favored termination.
- Court of Appeals reversed; South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to address constitutionality and evidentiary standards for termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §63-7-2570(8) constitutional on its face as the sole basis for TPR? | Mother contends the statute impermissibly creates a time-based presumption of unfitness. | DSS argues the statute aligns with ASFA and permits termination when best interests require and delay is attributable to parent. | Statute is facially constitutional. |
| Was termination proven by clear and convincing evidence and in the children’s best interests? | Court of Appeals correctly found insufficient clear and convincing proof under the statute. | DSS proved termination was in the best interests and supported by clear and convincing evidence. | Yes; termination affirmed. |
| Are delays in reunification attributable to the parents rather than DSS? | Delays largely caused by DSS procedural issues and agency shortcomings. | Delays were due to parental actions or inactions. | Delays attributed to the parents; termination appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (clear and convincing standard for termination of parental rights)
- Charleston Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Marccuci, 396 S.C. 218 (S.C. Supreme Court, 2011) (as-applied delays cannot justify termination solely on 15/22 months)
- Loe v. Mother, Father, & Berkeley Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 382 S.C. 457 (Ct.App. 2009) (delays caused by agency deficient handling; reverses TPR order)
- Charleston Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Jackson, 368 S.C. 87 (Ct.App. 2006) (child-centered view of permanency and best interests)
- Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281 (S.C. Supreme Court, 1999) (due process and parental rights in TPR context)