757 S.E.2d 388
S.C.2014Background
- Expedited appeal in a termination of parental rights (TPR) case seeking to challenge section 63-7-2570(1) of SC Code.
- Family court terminated Appellant’s rights to two minor sons and denied motion to dismiss.
- Appellant alleges the statute is unconstitutionally vague and violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Evidence showed extensive abuse by Stepfather and involvement by Biological Father and Appellant; DSS filed August 29, 2012.
- Oldest son removed as party due to turning eighteen; court found clear and convincing evidence of harm and best interests supported termination.
- Appellant lacks standing to challenge the statute since her conduct clearly falls within its proscribed acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TPR statute is void-for-vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment. | Appellant argues the term severity is undefined and standards are lacking. | Beattie contends the statute uses ordinary terms and provides adequate standards. | No; statute deemed sufficiently definite; Appellant lacks standing. |
| Whether Appellant has standing to attack vagueness in the statute. | Appellant claims she is harmed by vague standards. | State asserts standing defense; conduct clearly falls within statute. | Appellant lacks standing because her conduct falls within the statute. |
| Whether the family court’s findings meet due process and support termination by clear and convincing evidence. | Appellant challenges sufficiency of evidence. | Court properly weighed evidence; findings supported termination. | Findings supported by clear and convincing evidence; termination in children’s best interests affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (fundamental liberty interest in child custody; due process in termination cases)
- In re Maricopa Cnty. Juvenile Action Nos. JS-5209 & JS-4963, 692 P.2d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (due process; vague statutes fail to provide fair notice or ascertainable standards)
- In re Gentry, 369 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. App. 1985) (vagueness requires fair notice and explicit standards)
- Curtis v. State, 549 S.E.2d 591 (S.C. 2001) (statutory vagueness requires reasonably certain language)
- In re Anonymous Member of S.C. Bar, 709 S.E.2d 633 (S.C. 2011) (vagueness as to conduct proscribed and due process implications)