From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dewall v. Hicks

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 31, 2012
2012-UP-596 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-596

10-31-2012

Neva G. Dewall, South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondents, v. Phillip Hicks, Appellant. Appellate No. 2012-206547

Phillip Hicks, of Charleston, pro se. Paul Fredrick LeBarron, of South Carolina Department of Social Services, of Charleston, for Respondents.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted October 1, 2012

Appeal From Charleston County Judy L. McMahon, Family Court Judge.

Phillip Hicks, of Charleston, pro se.

Paul Fredrick LeBarron, of South Carolina Department of Social Services, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in holding Hicks in contempt: DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607, 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011) ("A finding of contempt rests within the sound discretion of the [family court]."); Abate v. Abate, 377 S.C. 548, 552, 660 S.E.2d 515, 518 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An appellate court should reverse a decision regarding contempt only if it is without evidentiary support or the [family court] has abused [its] discretion."); Woodside v. Woodside, 290 S.C. 366, 379, 350 S.E.2d. 407, 415 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding a person is in contempt when he or she willfully disobeys a court order); Bartlett v. Rachels, 375 S.C. 348, 352, 652 S.E.2d 432, 435 (Ct. App. 2007) ("For purposes of contempt, an act is willful if done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law." (internal quotations omitted)).
2. As to Hicks's remaining issues: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [family court] to be preserved for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

FEW, C.J, and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ, concur.


Summaries of

Dewall v. Hicks

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 31, 2012
2012-UP-596 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2012)
Case details for

Dewall v. Hicks

Case Details

Full title:Neva G. Dewall, South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondents…

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 31, 2012

Citations

2012-UP-596 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2012)