*1 SERVICES, GREENVILLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL Lynette Respondent Godwin, v. BOWES and James Kent Of Whom Lynette Appellant. BOWES, is In Bowes the Interest of Cricket DOB: 09-25-85, age years. eighteen Shirley child under Jean HALL and Hall, Roger Respondents Dale v. GREENVILLE COUNTY DEPART SERVICES, Lynette OF MENT SOCIAL Bowes and James Kent God win, Lynette Appellant. Of Whom Bowes Interest BOWES, Joy DOB: 09-25-85. (437 (2d) 107) S.E. Supreme Court *2 Jones, Jr., Western Legal Agency M. Services Andrew Inc., Carolina, Greenville, appellant. for Hall, se. Shirley Dale pro Hall Roger Columbia, Vanderbilt, SCDSS, respondent G. Tana for DSS. litem, ad Faulkner, Greenville, guardian
Debora child. 5, 1993.
Heard Nov. 7, 1993. 25, 1993.Reh. Den. Dec.
Decided Oct. Justice;
Moore, of appellant’s involves termination appeal This (Mother’s) seven-year-old daughter, in her parental rights parents, respon- her foster Cricket, adoption by and Cricket’s Hall.1 revеrse termination We Shirley Rodger dents custody. for a determination of and remand parental rights with his consent were terminated child’s father’s regarding presented appeal the father. no issue
FACTS Mother was with Cricket pregnant February 1985when she was hospitalized treatment of a Virginia disorder. her schizophrenic July condition was evalu- improved ated as with minimal impairment and she was con- capable sidered self-support. her from Upon discharge she hospital moved to South Carolina to live with Cricket’s fa-
ther, James Kent Godwin. September 2, 1985,
On birth gave to Cricket Greenville Hospital. time, Memorial At that Godwininformed Mother she could him longer no live with and offered to take a local shelter after her discharge from the hospital. The shelter was not equipped to house babies nor Mother did have the appropriate supplies to care for an A city ju- infant. venile officer came the hospital and took Cricket into emer- gency protective custody on 4. September Respondent (DSS) Department Greenville County of Social Services then *3 petitioned for emergency protective custody. did Mother not consent.
After a removal merits hearing, family court issued an 18,1985, order on October that DSS finding proba- acted with in ble cause the child and removing awarding custody. DSS No of finding neglect abuse or made. A was treatment plan was including оrdered psychiatric care for Mother. Cricket was with placed foster care the Halls. thereafter,
Soon a purchased Mother mobile home for her- self with disability income from social security. began She at- regular tending therapy sessions at the Greenville Mental Health Commission.
During this Mother’s period, discussions with her therapist she indicate experienced repeated frustration in her dealings with DSS. Mother her found limited access to very her child unsatisfactory. She responded to the situation apathy with al- she though continuously expressed therapy her desire to be reunited with The Cricket. noted therapist passivity Mother’s and inability to communicate. He also noted the depth Mother’s for feeling “Guilt, anger, Cricket: feelings betrayal being with Cricket and period not with her can never be made up breastfed nor being loved now.” —not 1987, In Mother birth to gave another Victoria. daughter, Mother told her constantly she therapist worried DSS would also about very discouraged take Victoria from her. She was was not custody of Cricket. DSS prospects regaining plan with Mother’s under treatment progress satisfied in 1989.Mother then and her visitation was further restricted This action was brought gain custody an action to Cricket. unsuccessful. 1989,DSS an action to terminate commenced September on an failure alleged Cricket based
Mother’s 9, 1989, By dated Nоvember to visit with the child. order alleged ground Judge prove Board found DSS failed successfully He had cared for her termination. noted Mother Victoria, her birth and he specifically other since daughter, evidence that there was lack bond- commented on DSS’s “This is natural since between Mother Cricket: ing have had contact since and Cricket limited [Mother] is convinced that con- days [DSS] was old. court two failure to reunite bonding to this lack of its tributed an earnest begin Cricket.” He ordered DSS with [Mother] family. reunite the effort to child, Aaron, born in the of 1990. Phillip spring
A third was custody had resumed By physical Mother July 1,1991, was awarded legal custody. and on March she 11, 1991, protective cus- petitiоn DSS filed On March very with “a red on Cricket came to school tody reports based face,” left on the side of her an “abrasion” right area on her shoulders and abdomen. cheek, and “several bruises” an Judge Mobleyissued order hearing, After a removal merits and granting had abused Cricket physically finding including mental plan He ordered a treatment custody. DSS was returned fos- and visitation. Cricket counseling health ter Halls. care *4 10,
Meanwhile, 1991, Mobley granted May Judge They action. filed Halls’ motion to intervene in removal or, in the al- custody of Cricket permanent pleading seeking and an rights ternative, parental termination Mother’s in their joined request. to them. adoption awаrd of DSS held in 1991 while hearing September A was termination plan on the treatment or- working still DSS was found Mother’s Mobley. Judge Johnson by Judge dered to S.C. Code pursuant be terminated rights should parental 192 20-7-1572(1) (6) (1985).
§Ann. He awarded to the adoption Halls.
ISSUES 1. Whether intervention by the Halls was proper.
2. Whether the statutory ground for termination was
proved by clear and evidence. convincing
DISCUSSION Mother contends the family court abused al- its discretion in lowing the Halls to intervene seek to termination her parental rights.
An action to terminate parental need ini not be tiated DSS but may brought be by any interested In re (2d) Lyle, party. 419, 284 (1985); S.C. 327 S.E. 70 (1985). § Code S.C. Ann. 20-7-1564 Foster parents have stand to an action. Department ing bring such Social Services v. Pritchett, (2d) (Ct. 517, S.C. 374 S.E. see 1988); App. also S.C. Code Ann. 20-7-2376(E) 1991) (foster § (Supp. care review board advise foster parents right their to petition family court for parental termination of rights аnd adop tion). A petition removal may include a petition termi 20-7-736(F) parental § nation of rights. S.C. Code Ann. A allowing decision permissive intervention under 24(b), Rule will SCRCP2 be only reversed for an abuse re Co., & of discretion. Milliken 257, 295 S.C. (Ct. 1988). S.E. App. Since foster parents have stand- to seek ing termination and the statutory scheme re- allows moval and termination be considered together, we find family court did abuse its discretion in allowing the Halls’ intervention.
Mother next contends the evidence was insufficient to support termination of rights. Mother’s parental rights were pursuant terminated to S.C. Code 20-7-1572(1) (1985) § Ann. which provides for termination when:
(1) The child or another the home has been harmed § in 20-7-490(C), and because defined severity repetition or the abuse or it neglect, is not rea- 2Applicable family court under Rule SCRFC.
193 the home can be made within sonably likely safe that the likelihood determining twelve months. safe, parent’s previous made abuse or home can be may in the home the child or another child be of neglect added.) (Emphasis considered. rights proved of must be ground parental
A for termination Dept. evidence. South Carolina So convincing clear by of (2d) Martell, 279 S.C. 307 S.E. cial Services v. by failed to clear and prove conclude DSS and the Halls We or of abuse or severity repetition evidence that convincing it the home can be made reasonably unlikely makes neglect within twelve months. safe no evidence independent
DSS and the Halls introduced the result of abuse February 1991was bruising removal order which found only the but submitted incident.3No other abuse was al- abuse based on this physical action, as op- a In a removal as basis for termination. leged only a abuse need be shown to termination posed proceeding, County Depart- of the evidence. Aiken by preponderance Wilcox, 90, 403 S.E. Services v. 304 S.C. ment Social (Ct. 1991). in the removal order abuse App. finding harm to termi- support an insufficient finding was therefore convincing under a clear and standard. nation finding Moreover, Judge Mobley’s in simply relying terminate removal оrder to abuse in prior physical to make any failed rights, Judge Johnson parental Mother’s repetitive proved or the abuse was severe determination child came to evidence. Evidence the convincing clear and described does not injuries the minor day one school termination of Mother’s abuse justify severe demonstrate phys- While such single based on this incident. child, it for removal of the may ground constitute ical abuse termination. required not rise to the level abuse does are assertion, there no Further, to the dissent’s contrary to base conclusion or which neglect upon abuse findings termination. neglect support abuse or repetitive thеre was on Mother’s Mother at birth based was removed from there Significantly, for her. inability provide imminent accidentally horseplaying with the child and Mother testified she was her. bruised or any finding
never was of abuse Cricket’s re- neglect upon *6 (1985) § at moval birth. S.C. Code Ann. 20-7-610 (providing Cf custody emergency protective upon finding of abuse or neglect).
Finally, DSS and the Halls failed to clear and prove by con- that vincing evidence “it is not that reasonably likely the can home be made safe within twelve months” required 20-7-1572(1). § at time was, termination under the Mother the termination hearing, still in with the compliance DSS treatment ordered five plan months earlier. The DSS worker testified had everything done requested her with throughout dealings Moreover, it is DSS. uncontro- рrovided verted Mother has a good home for her other two statute, children. the Under this evidence is persuasive whether issue the home can be made safe. Mother also testi- fied she wants Cricket back her home.
The dissent would have us respond staggering to the statis- tics of child abuse neglect by lowering objective stan- dards which govern must the termination of parental rights. Court This cannot sanction the termination precipitous parental rights emotionally based on charged complaints not proved to level of this objective Further, standard. we must that recognize Cricket too will suffer a tremendous de- if privation family ties are erroneously severed. 1982, the United States Supreme Court held for the first that at
time a parent’s least clear by unfitness must be proved and convincing evidence before his or her parental rights can Kramer, v. Santosky be terminated. 455 102 U.S. S.Ct. (2d) (1982).4 1388, L.Ed. The Court’s analysis in reach- that ing conclusion instructive here. It commenced not- ing: liberty fundamental interest of natural parents
care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate they because not simply have been model par- ents or have temporary custody lost of their child to the Even State. when relationships strained, blood are par- ents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life. If anything, pеrsons faced 4Following Santosky, adopted convincing Coui't clear and standard in Richberg Dawson, 356, 296 termination eases. v. 278 S.C. S.E. with forced dissolution of their parental rights have a more critical need for procedural protections than do those state intervention resisting family into af- ongoing fairs. When the State moves to destroy weakened famil- bonds, iar it must provide parents fundamentally fair procedures. 753, 102
455 U.S. at
at
S.Ct.
1394-95.
The Court also emphasized that a termination hearing pits
the natural
parent,
against the child but against the State.
State cannot
presume
“[T]he
a child and
parents
his
are
adversaries.... until the
proves
unfitness,
State
child and his parents share a vital interest in
erro
preventing
neous termination of their natural relationship.”
Further, the State an array marshals of public resources5 and has the the power shape historical events that form the instance, basis for termination.6 For in case, this Mother has struggled through years litigation what fighting must seem an foe. overwhelming custody DSS has had of Cricket for the child’sentire lifetime and has contributed to the lack of bond ing between Mother and her child.
Despite disparity this power, dissent would refuse Mother the constitutional protection set forth in Santosky. The dissent looks to other “complaints” of abuse never proved all, at much proved less clear and convincing evidenсe, to establish repetitive abuse or Even neglect. incredibly, more the dissent wishes support the termination of Mother’s (2) § under parental rights 20-7-1572, subsection a ground never or raised to pleaded family court. In applying the process case, due clause to a termination Santosky clearly termination on a prohibits ground without notice. Even re- concede the spondents family court erroneously terminated (6) § Mother’s rights under subsection of 20-7-1572since no notice was of that given ground. sum,
In the evidence to support statutory ground termination does not rise to the level of proof by clear and evidence. main convincing thrust of the in evidence is fact to demonstrate that the Halls are loving responsible fos- 759, 102 455 U.S. at S.Ct. at 1398. 763, 102 at U.S. S.Ct. at 1400. is paramount concern to en- While this Court’s parents.
ter afford welfare, we must process the child’s sure to which she is entitled. More- the constitutional protection an preventing the child’sshared interest over, recognize we of her familial bond with natural erroneous termination we reverse the termination Mother’s Accordingly, parent. 20-7-1572(1) § failure to prove under this rights parental clear and evidence. statutory ground by convincing Further, we the termination of Mother’s rights reverse 20-7-1572(6) no since, conceded, § she had notice of under in this for termination. Our matter ground disposition custody hereby affect remanded does not the issue of which family to the court for consideration.
Reversed and remanded. Finney, JJ., concur.
Chandler Toal, J., Harwell, CJ., dissenting separate opinion. dissenting: Justice Toal, majority’s
I I with the respectfully disagree posi- dissent. initially that the harm which the removal of the required tion reproved from the must be under the enhanced home of clear and evidence. proof convincing Additionally, burden us supports I would hold record before affirm- adequately family termination under ing court’s 20-7-1572, 2. section subsection social discovered City Mary New York worker *8 chained, beaten, and by Ellen Wilson starved adoptive specifically As there were no laws parents. addressing York by caregivers, abuse of children their the New City po lice refused to take action. the efforts of Henry Through Society the founder of the for the Prevention of Berg, Cruelty Animals, adoptive Ellen’s mother was to Mary brought in The Mary placed trial and Ellen was an orphanage,1 Society in Cruelty for the Prevention of Children was founded 1875. all have Currently, fifty protect states laws and agencies from and neglect. Yet, children abuse child maltreatment con tinues to our to an plague society alarming degree. Approxi 1 Hall, Past, Zigler Nancy Physical & W. Abuse in Edward Child America: Future, Maltreatment Present in Child 38
197 2,694,000 mately children were reported as abused or ne in glected the United in States 1991.2There 17,847 were child abuse reports South Carolina.3 Nationwide there has been a 274% increase of reported cases of child abuse neglect 1,000,000 since 1976.4Over cases of child abuse and neglect are officially identified in the United States It every year.5 is esti mated for every identified, case there are at least two more that are not reported.6 This increase is attributable only partly to an increased awareness and reporting.7
In 1991, an 1,383 estimated children died from child abuse or in the neglect United States.8 Currently, almost four chil- dren die in country each day from abuse or In neglect.9 Carolina, South twenty-two children’s deaths were attributed to child abuse or neglect 1991.10In figures are ex- to show an pected increase to twenty-five deaths.11The rate of child maltreatment fatalities has risen over steadily the past years.12 six Carolina, South comparing past years three with the previous three-year period, there has been a 32% in- crease in child deaths from abuse and neglect many more deaths attributed to violence.13Indeed, “[i]t increasingly dangerous to be a young child in South Carolina.”14Between 2American reporting Humane Association survey the results of a con ducted the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse. 3 Department South Carolina Registry, of Social Services Central 1990-1991 Fiscal Year. 4 Association, Building American Humane Caring Society. an Aware and (Hereinafter “Caring Society”.) 5 Neglect frequent Id. in the experienced by most form of maltreatment children. National Neglect, Working Paper 1, Center on Child Abuse and Summary Component. Date 6Caring Society, supra note 4. Research, National Center on Child Abuse Prevention Current Trends in Reporting Child Abuse Fifty-State and Fatalities: Results of the 1991Annual Survey “Fifty-State survey”]. [hereinafter Economic stress abuse are the two most-often cited reasons for the actual increase child abuse. Id. 8Id. 9Id. fatality figures probably Id. These under count the actual incidence of consistently maltreatment fatalities as research has shown that some acciden deaths, homicides, tal Syndrome and Sudden might Infant Death cases appropriately be labeled more as child maltreatment deaths. Id. Abuse, Zupan, neglect State, rising, 6, 1998, Fran H. deaths Feb. at (quoting Cristophillis, 2B Catherine C. Chairwoman of the Child Fatalities Committee, Services). Department Review South Carolina of Social 12Fifty-State Survey, supra note 7. 13Zupan, supra note 11.
14 Id.
198 identi- whose deaths were 1991, 39% of victims
1989 and con- had or current prior the result of child abuse being fied as with services.15 protection tact child have neglect who abuse and Those child victims survive illness,16alcoholism,17 drug and of higher psychiatric incident were of all Seventy ninety percent prisoners to addiction.18 to neglect produce Child abuse and tend abused as children.19 However, parental rejection appears juvenile delinquency.20 Car of crime.21In South powerful instigator be an even more rose 1987to olina, arrests for crimes 97% from juvenile violent 1991.22 in neglect
The and of child abuse and prevalence severity scandal. In the most abun- the United States is national nations, the dantly progressive family and endowed wrong much that is cycle pervades abuse generational ethics, the sav- our of governmental culture. Problems headlines, debacle, economy make the and loan and the ings hidden from mostly while side of life in America the darker has as disintegration family The of the American public viеw.23 in country any an crime impact rising on violent great who are of abuse often, factor. All too children victims single the violent and neglect up dysfunctional and become grow failing court is criticized for system rightly society. 15 however, Fifty-State Survey, supra percentage, 7. This substantial note part many only chil may investigate fact that deaths of reflect the states prior protective dren with current or contact with services. Id. 16 Nelson, Jeffery Bryer, Pamela A. Bernadette A. Jean Baker Miller & B. Krol, Physical Psychiatric and Abuse as Factors Adult Childhood Sexual Illness, (1987); Carmen, Psychiatry Elaine Patricia Perri 144:1426-30 Am. J. Illness, Mills, Psychiatric Trudy Am. J. & Victims and Reiker Violence (1988). Psychiatry 141:149 17 Schaefer, Sobieraj Hollyfield, L. Prevalence Karen & Rebecca Melodie R. Alcoholics, 12 Physical Abuse Male Veteran Child Childhood in Adult (1988). Neglect 141-140 Abuse Densen-Gerber, Study A & the Relation Frederick S. Cohen Judianne Preliminary ship Results, Drug in 178 Between Child Abuse Addiction Patients: (1982). Neglect Abuse and 383-387 Child 19 CaringSociety, supra note 4. 20 McCord, Forty Perspective Abuse and Joan A Year Child Effects of Neglect, Neglect Child Abuse 265-270 21Id. Law Division. South Carolina State Enforcement 23Reports day involving care foster care of child maltreatment centers and public. great general media homes attract a However, deal of attention from the and the reports day and foster account for less than 1% of care сare abuse reports. Survey, Fifty-State supra 7. all note *10 intervene quickly effectively abuse and cases. neglect This case is a of a perfect example “caught system” child a Cricket’s mother has procedural delays. been completely unable or to care for unwilling during years her seven Nevertheless, on this earth. the majority sets forth a rule which requires that even the courts have though determined mother, on three occasions that Cricket is not safe with her each will have to subsequent hearing litigate all over again the Mother’s before this can neglect be freed for adoption.
Section 20-7-1572of the South Carolina Code sets out six which will the sеparate grounds support termination of Subsection 1 that parental rights. provides parental rights may be terminated if the child has been harmed as defined 20-7-490(C), under section and because of the severity repe- or tition the abuse or neglect, it is not that reasonably likely can made home be safe within twelve months. Subsection 1 further provides determining the likelihood that “[i]n safe, the home can be made the parent’s previous abuse or ne- of the child or another child in the home glect may be consid- 20-7-1572(1) (1985). § ered.” S.C. Code Ann. majority 20-7-1572(1) holds the harm under section must be reproved a and convincing under clear standard. Under the majority’s all abuse and also would be re- analysis, previous neglect to be clear and quired re-litigated proven by convincing 20-7-1572(1) evidence. To construe section in this manner ig- nores the basic under which the termination is al- grounds subsection, lowed under this which is that the abuse or ne- that it not glect repetitive likely is so severe or the home will be made safe in the next twelve months. The or severity neglect of the abuse or is the basis for the termina- repetition subsection, and, tion under this there- parent’s rights fore, is the which must be established clear and finding Kramer, 745, convincing Santosky evidence under v. 455 U.S. (1982). 71 L.Ed. S.Ct. it would be more difficult to majority’s analysis, Under rights parent neglected terminate the who has repeatedly his child over a course of than it would be to years or abused of a who fails to his child rights parent support terminate 20-7-1572(4). under This would period six-month section the intent of the Fur- certainly legislature. illogical man- is at odds with the ther, legislature’s this interpretation date: with termination of [dealing
This subarticle construed in order to ensure liberally must be rights] minor children judicial procedures freeing prompt termi- parents by and control of their custody from The interests of the parent-child relationship. nating the parental if the child’s interest and prevail child shall conflict. §Ann. 20-7-1578 S.C. Code *11 is on the of the Mother. majority’s solely rights
The focus to the child’sinterest or Nor given rights. No consideration is the interest in majority acknowledge urgent does the State’s the welfаre of the child. Lassiter v. Social Ser Department of vices, 2153, 2160, 27, 452 U.S. 101 S.Ct. 68 L.Ed. 18, (1981). This, unfortunately, is also the the United position in In Santosky, Court took Supreme Santosky, supra. States in parent’s keep the held the child and the interest majority coincide, the unit intact until the State ing family proves As out dis pointed by Renquist’s unfitness. Justice sent, family the interest in a continuation of the unit child’s the extend that such a continuation would not only exists to 787, 102 harmful to him or her. Id. 455 at at be U.S. S.Ct. Assuming by keeping n. 13. the child’sinterest is best served unit intact at the family point ignores very the this nature of the the findings previous hearing. the proceeding If are adequately provided by the child’s interests I in- majority’s the and would based on the procedure, opine not, a in they of our statute are is order. terpretation change above, the country As noted the state of child this and this parents state is a are to the utmost disgrace. protected children, the who cannot reasonably any pro- extent but offer own, of their are If our state and federal ignored. tection constitutions do not our children from abuse and an protect life in their then family years, they unstable formative should article, be amended so that do. In a law review Gill they Judge desperate situations children find themselves exposes country’s biological because of this bias. The Honorable child, Gill, Charles D. on the Status the American Essay A.D.: Constitutionаlly Chattel or Protected Child-Citi- zens?, article, 17 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. In his Judge Gill notes protection children is included in the constitu- of seventy-nine tions Sadly, countries. is United States seventy-nine. not one of the Judge presents Gill the proposed constitutional amendment drafted the National Force Task for Children’s Constitutional Rights. The of the first section amendment proposed provides:
All citizens of the years United States who are fifteen age or shall younger enjoy the to live a home that right is safe and healthy; right adequate care; health an right adequate education and the to the care of right a living family or a thereof, substitute which approxi- closely mates as possible family. such Id. at 506.
Apparently without such a constitutional mandate ex- pressly most our conferring children take for granted, a growing youth number our must do In without. termination parental rights the children hearings, who have the most lose remain without a voice.
But the majority goes even further than required by San- It tosky. imposed has near impossible standard for the long- case, term abusive parent. there was little evidence as to the severity of abuse which physical necessitated *12 Cricket’s most recent removal from her mother’s care. How- ever, there was abundant evidence of the nature of repetitive the abuse and to sustain a neglect finding based on clear and evidenсe that the not convincing likely home is to be made safe in the next twelve months. birth,
Cricket was born 1985. a few Within of her days she was taken protective custody. time, into At is that it undisputed that her mother was not of capable her. caring intervention, She was in a placed foster home. DSS’s Through the eventually Mother was visitation in- given rights which cluded overnight visitation when the child two years was old. unsupervised discontinued, however, This visitation had to be behavior, because of the Mother’s which strange included alle- of At gations physical time, abuse. that supervised visitation provided; however, was the unhappy Mother was with this of form visitation and not therefore chose to visit the child at all years. for the next two After the two-year having period child, that the Mother nevertheless success-
no contact with parental rights. to terminate her attempt resisted DSS’s fully eventually the Mother gained resumed and was Visitation child’s the first time the Cricket for custody five-year-old however, re- case, the DSS of DSS’s closing life. Within weeks being again physically that Cricket was complaints ceived subsequently abuse was by physical her mother. The abused us. order to the one before That prior a proceeding proved law of the case. v. Car- Long not from and is the appealed was Co., Custody Baking olina 193 S.C. S.E. time, visita- supervised was returned to DSS. Since again the Although have been resumed. counseling tion and visitations, completely ig- she almost attends the scheduled during supervised the visitations. nores Cricket the her other chil- The fact that Mother has bonded with them not taking dispositive. and to be care of is appears dren to care for every opportunity has been given This Mother she not feel toward Cricket She admits does openly Cricket. told for her other children. She has the DSS way the she does not matter. has al- that Cricket’s do She feelings counselors hit half and tell Cricket she lowed Cricket’s sister mother, foster of their She also told Cricket’s part family. not abuse, that she episode physical the most recent before father. biolоgical to live with her sending Cricket planned neglect nature the Mother’s my opinion, repetitive by was established the evi- clearly convincingly and abuse the trial court’s termina- Accordingly, I would affirm dence. parental rights. tion of
Further, family I would affirm court’s termination 20-7-1572, under of the Mother section rights for termination of parental 2. Subsection allows subsection parent if pur- has been removed from “[t]he § 20-7-736, out of the home for period suant has been months, meaningful effort despite six reasonable services, offer rehabilitative agency appropriate the re- the conditions which caused has remedied parent ,”24 termination if the provision par- moval. .. This аllows for *13 24 objects majority ground it was not The to the termination based this Furthermore, First, specifically pled. specific statutory grounds pled. no were Tower, require showing prejudice. alleged process due Tall violations some (2d) Panel, 225, Inc. v. South Carolina Procurement Revieiv 294 S.C. 363 S.E.
203 that not suggest situation. It “does remedied the ent has not preserve parental to adequate to alone is attempt remedy fact, remedied the condi have, in The must attempt rights. Broome, 48, 413 307 S.C. v. Social Services Dept. tion.” S.C. Pritch (2d) (1992) v. Social Services (quoting Dept. 835 S.E. (Ct. denied, (2d) 1988),cert. 517, 374 App. ett, 296 S.E. S.C. (1989)). 380 S.E. S.C. recently most from her mothers home was removed Cricket to de- was held later, hearing months this оf 1991. Six March termi- should be of Mother parental rights termine if the testimony regard- there was abundant hearing, nated. At this to rehabilitate services provide efforts ing DSS’s majority places child. The her with her Mother and reunite complied the Mother has that testimony reliance on the great ignores majority completely plan. with the treatment limited to has been her compliance which indicates testimony the di- only and following sessions at the scheduled appearing and case- of the DSS counselors rect and demands repeated Cricket, al- testimony indicates undisputed workers. The mother, tried to establish of her has obviously fearful though removal, the Mother her. After Criсket’s relationship with find our where Cricket to interrogating the first visit spent time, period, over six-month had her. Since placed DSS almost but the scheduled visitations the Mother has attended spends The Mother disregards presence. Cricket’s complete with the talking the DSS office straightening her time one During caseworkers, referring not even Cricket. but the rest Cricket to accompany refused to session, the Mother insisted. When absolutely room until the caseworker visita- supervised at the present is daughter Mother’s other reading or period the entire visitation tions, the spends the visitation daughter. spends the other playing the other side homework on or doing alone period рlaying child sup- receives Moreover, the Mother of the visitation area. does not though even she father from Cricket’s port payments little on Cricket and very spends of the child. She custody have requests. to the caseworker’s only response then provision were supporting under termination The facts opportunity these facts but to rebut presented The Mother had an below. majority’s over substance convincingly reliance on form so. The failed to do recognize of the child. with its failure consistent *14 It absolutely is also was no be- undisputed there bonding tween the The any Mother and child. Mother has not shown signs of affection to Cricket. The Mother refused consistently to that recognize any problems exist and has re- completely attempts sisted all made the to be- by modify counselor her way. havior in has to any demonstrated no desire be a real, loving to parent Cricket. The Mother testified that she had no with problem care, Cricket’s in foster but being that not she did want Cricket to to be placed continue with parents. removed, adoptive Since was the Mother has not to sought regain custody. openly She has declared feelings unimportant Cricket’s are to her. coun- Attending in selling body only enough sessions is not to remedy abuse which necessitated Cricket’s removal. DSS is re- not quired her to return Cricket to home and mothеr’s allow her to be in again prove abused order to the situation has not been remedied. It is that painfully clear the mother has no feelings Cricket, for litigation but sees this be- power struggle DSS, tween the foster parents, and herself. Accordingly, record supports termination the Mother’s parental rights on the basis that the conditions which necessitated removal have not been corrected of DSS’s efforts. spite
Only a child who has at least one whom can person he love, loved, who valued, also feels and wanted that person, will develop healthy He can self-esteem. then become confident of own his chances achievement life and сonvinced of his own human value. Where this positive environmental attitude an toward infant is miss- ing start, from the consequences become obvious later childhood and adult life. They take form of the individual’s care diminished for the wellbeing of his own body, or for his physical appearance and clothing, or for his presented his image beings. fellow What is dam- his love aged is regard himself, and consequently his capacity love and care for others his including own children.25
The law provides strong for a presumption the natural parent is that person. However, when it becomes clear the Goldstein, Joseph Solnit, Beyond Anna Freud & Albert the Best Interest the Child 20 role, natural or will fill parent cannot the law must provide the child opportunity receiving what he or she needs others. The record through before this Court clearly establishes the convincingly every Mother has had opportunity nurture Cricket but has repeatedly failed to do so. Accordingly, parental rights appropriately were termi- nated.
Harwell, C.J., concurs. *15 CLARK, Jr., Clark, Sweeney, Woodrow F. and Nadine M. B. Lanzo Paul F. Sweeney, Sweeney, Boddie, Beatrice P. M. Alice R. and James Walls Nancy Walls, Baisden, Terry J. Frederick H. Baisden S. R. David Boalt, Bentley Boalt and Gail F. Bentley, Charles C. Mae Ora Sweeney, Appellants COUNTY, Kenneth W. v. GREENVILLE Morton International, Inc., Southern, Inc., Corpo Para-Chem Hoechst Celanese ration, Co., Inc., Management J.P.Stevens & and Waste of South Car olina, Inc., Respondents.
(437 117) S.E.
Supreme Court