Urban v. Kerscher
423 S.C. 615
| S.C. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Child born 2009; mother Nataschja Urban had sole custody until May 2014 when she left Child with family friends Leo Kerscher and Mary Crew while seeking housing/employment out of state. Urban intended the placement to be temporary (summer 2014).
- Crew and Kerscher filed for custody in June 2014 while Urban was out of state; Urban was served, unrepresented, answered and agreed to relinquish custody; the family court entered an order in September 2014 granting "permanent" custody to Kerscher and Crew. Urban did not attend the final hearing.
- Urban returned to South Carolina in August 2014 and repeatedly sought return of Child; Kerscher and Crew sometimes refused contact; Urban filed for return of custody in November 2014 and for temporary relief in April 2015 (visitation ultimately granted in June 2015).
- A final family court hearing occurred March 2016; the court denied Urban’s petition and maintained custody with Kerscher and Crew, prompting this appeal.
- The Court of Appeals held Moore v. Moore governs disputes where a biological parent temporarily relinquishes custody to third parties and concluded the record showed Urban’s relinquishment was temporary, Urban is a fit parent, the circumstances requiring relinquishment were remedied, and the presumption favoring biological-parent custody was not overcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Urban) | Defendant's Argument (Kerscher & Crew) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family court erred by awarding custody to third parties over a natural parent | Moore factors govern and support returning Child to Urban; alternatively, Urban met burden showing substantial change in circumstances | Family court applied Moore and changed-circumstances analyses and found factors did not support returning custody | Court of Appeals: Moore governs; Urban satisfied Moore factors—custody must be returned to Urban (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting change of custody | Urban contends she remedied the conditions that prompted temporary relinquishment (stable home with fiancée, schooling, access to support) | Family court found Urban not fit due to unemployment and financial dependence; custody with third parties should remain | Court rejected family court’s view on fitness and contact; found Urban fit and circumstances resolved (Moore sufficed; change-of-circumstances analysis unnecessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75 (1989) (establishes four-factor test when a biological parent temporarily relinquishes custody to a third party)
- Harrison v. Ballington, 330 S.C. 298 (1998) (examining relinquishment circumstances and parental intent to determine whether Moore applies)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (recognizes fundamental liberty interest of parenting and places burdens on third parties seeking custody)
- Sanders v. Emery, 317 S.C. 230 (1994) (discusses presumption favoring placement with biological parent)
- McCann v. Doe, 377 S.C. 373 (2008) (reiterates presumption that biological-parent custody is preferred unless overcome)