Doe v. Baby Boy Roe

26 Citing cases

  1. Stinecipher v. Ballington

    366 S.C. 92 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 18 times
    Holding a parent was not relieved of his duty to support his child merely because the custodians never requested support

    "[I]n a TPR case, the appellate court has jurisdiction to examine the entire record to determine facts in accordance with its own view of the evidence." Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579-80, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct.App. 2003) (citing RichlandCounty Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Earles, 330 S.C. 24, 32, 496 S.E.2d 864, 866 (1998)). In this examination and in our determination, the best interest of the child is our paramount consideration.

  2. Doe v. Roe

    379 S.C. 291 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    STANDARD OF REVIEW In TPR proceedings, the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration. Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct.App. 2003). Before parental rights can be permanently terminated, the alleged grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

  3. Charleston County v. Jackson

    368 S.C. 87 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 71 times
    Holding a parent's due process argument was not preserved for appellate review when the issue was not raised to or ruled upon by the family court

    STANDARD OF REVIEW In a TPR case, the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration. Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct.App. 2003). Before parental rights can be forever terminated, the alleged grounds for the termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

  4. South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Marshall

    2018-UP-004 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2018)

    We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Jennifer M., 404 S.C. 269, 276, 744 S.E.2d 591, 595 (Ct. App. 2013) ("In appeals from the family court, an appellate court reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. at 277, 744 S.E.2d at 595 ("[However], de novo review does not relieve an appellant of [her] burden to 'demonstrate error in the family court's findings of fact.'" (quoting Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392, 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011))); id. ("Consequently, the family court's factual findings will be affirmed unless appellant satisfies this court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the [family] court." (alteration in original) (quoting Lewis, 392 S.C. at 392, 709 S.E.2d at 655)); Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct. App. 2003) ("In a [TPR] case, the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration."); id. at 581, 578 S.E.2d at 736 ("TPR statutes must be liberally construed in order to ensure prompt judicial procedures for freeing minor children from the custody and control of their parents by terminating the parent-child relationship."). AFFIRMED.

  5. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Marshall

    Appellate Case No. 2016-000923 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2018)

    '" (quoting Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392, 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011))); id. ("Consequently, the family court's factual findings will be affirmed unless appellant satisfies this court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the [family] court." (alteration in original) (quoting Lewis, 392 S.C. at 392, 709 S.E.2d at 655)); Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct. App. 2003) ("In a [TPR] case, the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration."); id. at 581, 578 S.E.2d at 736 ("TPR statutes must be liberally construed in order to ensure prompt judicial procedures for freeing minor children from the custody and control of their parents by terminating the parent-child relationship."). AFFIRMED.WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

  6. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Chandler

    Appellate Case No. 2016-002482 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018)

    "In a [TPR] case, the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration." Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct. App. 2003). "Grounds for TPR must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

  7. South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Chandler

    2018-UP-003 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018)

    "In a [TPR] case, the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration." Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct. App. 2003). "Grounds for TPR must be proved by clear and convincing evidence."

  8. Dept. of Social Services v. Janice

    383 S.C. 221 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 39 times
    Finding it was in the best interest of the children to reverse TPR and maintain the mother's parental rights so she could continue to visit the children while they remained in foster care receiving the services they needed

    "If the family court finds that a statutory ground for [TPR] has been proven, it must then find that the best interests of the child would be served by [TPR]." Doe v. Baby BoyRoe, 353 S.C. 576, 580, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct.App. 2003). "In a termination of parental rights (TPR) case, the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration."

  9. South Carolina v. Mother

    375 S.C. 276 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 9 times
    Finding an issue abandoned because the appellant made "a conclusory argument without citation of any authority to support her claim"

    STANDARD OF REVIEW In a TPR case, the best interest of the child is paramount. Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct.App. 2003). Before terminating parental rights, the alleged grounds for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

  10. South Carolina Dept. of Soc. Ser. v. Sims

    359 S.C. 601 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 16 times

    In a TPR case, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the children. SeeDoe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct.App. 2003), cert. denied (April 8, 2004). Grounds for TPR must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.