*1 516 Bank Federal Land fees awarded. See in the amount of
tion of (2d) (Ct. App. 293 172, 355 S.E. Davant, 292 S.C. v. Columbia attor 1987)(trial of the reasonableness may court determine by agreed upon the percentages regardless fees ney the amount must demonstrate party the appealing parties Dedes, Strickland, unreasonable); v. see awarded was of fees (1992) (2d) Data Sys Baron (citing 134 _ S.C. _, 414 S.E. (1989) for a 296 382, S.C. 377 Loter, v. 297 tems Inc. determining to be considered of the factors discussion fees). attorney reasonableness court is order of the trial Accordingly,the Affirmed. concur. Judge,
Goolsby, C.J., and Associate Littlejohn, VanNAME, Appellant Bradley v. Richard VanNAME, Respondent. Margaret J. (2d) 373)
(419 S.E. Appeals Court of McAlister, D. Albert McAlister, McAlister & Laurens, Martin, Leatherwood, N. Walker, Todd & Bradford Mann, Greenville, appellant. for Ariail, Ariail, Robert M. of Mitchell & re- spondent. *2 Heard 6, 1991; 6, 1992. Nov. Decided Jan.
Reh. Feb. 7, 1992; 12, 1992. Granted On. Reh. June Acting Judge: Littlejohn, parties
The to this proceeding by were divorced the family court in May of 1989. Custody of their minor children was granted to the mother. It was contemplated, as indicated in itself, the decree that she be moving would from Greenville which had been the home of couple. the This action was com- menced two by months later Plaintiff-Appellant, Richard (the father) Bradley against VanName the Defendant- (the mother) Respondent, Margaret J. VanName seeking to restrain the moving parties’ mother from the three minor chil- dren from the County Greenville to State of near D.C., or Washington, alternatively that custody be taken from given the mother and to the father. portions Relevant of the mother’s answer amounts to general a denial. The trial judge custody left of the children with the mother. The father ap- We peals. affirm.
FACTS 9; The children Bradley, Matthew, involved are: age age 6; Megan, family together 5. The lived age prior to the granted divorce in 1989. The mother was a divorce on the of which is admitted the ground adultery by father. divorce,
Prior to mother’s the the father’s paramour by way the mother of telephone. harassed The mother testi- “His mistress had been harassing fied: me over the telephone I get had to the phone to where people tap my telephone to had get and I to the police involved. ...” A warrant was for her, taken but the proceeding appear results of that do not in the record. The father continues his with this relationship woman.
From the Decree of Divorce the father served “Notice of Intent to when Appeal” appeal but abandoned the the judge The trial Virginia. to not move the children
agreed to had, by the who that her was coerced agreement found of to to the sale refused consent debatably, wrongfully at least the by judge. ordered trial homeplace the as unfit. In essence not find either parent did judge The to with unclean both came court parties found that hands.
ISSUES appeal: on this are basic determination There two issues a (1) as to warrant been shown a of circumstances change Has (2) to be ordered Should the mother custody? change as to make the visita- with the children so return Greenville to him? tion the father more convenient that best interests legion cases are to the effect Our best In to determine the paramount. children are order minor can envision, we as best we children, interests these three us, before the circumstances under which from record custody would be if is continued with living children *3 or to the father. changed MOTHER’S CIRCUMSTANCES Greenville, she married and in living When mother was at a She is without part-time job working patently had a bank. family in about the divorce. She has no connec- bringing fault a in where Virginia, in Greenville area but has sister tions her with the children. She is now em- lives, she who assists by bank, approximately $18,000per full a ployed earning time that she felt that in a She testified year managerial capacity. to her. Virginia advantageous in northern was job the market month rent. per lives in an apartment pays $750 She FATHER’S CIRCUMSTANCES in graduate University The father is a of Clemson architec- He is employed County ture. as such School in System. His income is not indicated the record before us. an that his apartment. paramour now He admits occupies He in residence but “. . . stayed his never stays overnight my at when children were there.” He overnight my apartment is in the Greenville area. The record silent as to has relatives if were might custody how he care for the three children his granted him, consistent with full-time employment. LAW/ANALYSIS As between the two environments described herein- above, hesitancy this Court has no in finding that the best interests of children demand that they remain in the custody of the mother.
We do not think the trial judge abused his discretion in that the finding mother should not be required to move back to Greenville. While it is true that the Court may, inas the case of Patterson, McAlister v. 481, 299 278 S.C. (1982), require a parent to live in a particular area, that authority should be exercised sparingly. There was a time when in judges criminal cases would a defendant require under a suspended sentence to live outside the county or state, but such is no longer permitted. a Forcing person to live in a particular area upon liberty encroaches of an individ ual to live in the her place of his or choice. of the
Argument by counsel father is more centrally devoted to his client’s inconvenience in traveling to than to the best interests of the children. The in a better position is suffer the expense and incon venience travel upon incident visitation of the children than is the mother. the granting
Where of a custody child is at issue, the law allows the trial substantial discretion. In a determining change matter of of custody, a similar permitted. discretion is Commenting upon the situation, factual the trial judge, his Order, stated as follows:
. . . The move by the Defendant to northern [mother] Virginia is not anticipated unreasonable and was at the time of the It final divorce decree. was specifically men- tioned in the final divorce by the Court decree dated may a 12,1989. change the move is Although circumstances *4 it affect the well significantly does not being and overall the minor children. interest of alone Standing it does not form a basis for a transfer of custody.
In we find no ruling, so abuse of discretion. The father in rely large would measure upon the case of McAlister v. Patterson, supra. In that case the trial that the judge ruled could not take the child county. out of the home The Supreme Court affirmed. Here the trial ruled to the
520 within the discre- courts were both rulings by The
contrary. the reconciling in problem We find no trial judge. tion of the in- the Court. In each to presented the facts rulings two under the interest of the best considered stance, properly the Court children. in questions and way exceptions submitted
All issues without and found to be have been considered brief counsel’s merit.
Affirmed. J., concurs.
Gardner, Goolsby, J., in separate opinion. dissents Judge Goolsby, (dissenting): I dissent. respectfully is not in their best
The children’s move to northern relationship it them of the close deprives interests because Brunson, v. Thompson with their father. See they enjoyed (Ct. 1984) (in custody matters 221, App. 321 S.E. S.C. interests). consideration is the children’s best the paramount care for married, helped were father parents While duties and dress- bathing such as by performing the children in and sports after-school activ- participated them. He also ing with his children. ities round-trip to make a sixteen-hour the father is forced
Now with the children in a He must visit drive to see his children. financially physically only hotel room. Not is this situation it diminishes but, for the most draining father, importantly, with quality quantity spends both the of time the difficult, impossible, children. This situation makes it if not his maintain the the father to close he has devel- relationship with his children. oped any pressing justifies fail see need that
Moreover, I a better in job Virginia the mother has than Although move. job admits she did not look for a had in she she with another in Greenville. employer move notes the mother’s was
Finally, although majority decree divorce, time of the the divorce contemplated at the set “The made the determinations states, Court explicitly that order based the circumstances present upon forth *5 existed at the time the final and did not take hearing into consideration any changes occasioned move [the mother’s] ” added.) (Emphasis Greenville area. from I, therefore, would reverse the family court’s decision and order the mother to return either to the area with the children or to their relinquish custody to father. COMPANY, Respondent NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE v. Joretta Pena, Christopher Appellants. PENA and (419 (2d) 375) Appeals Court of Jr., Covington, C. & Patrick of Eugene Covington appellants.