Summary
noting the appellant's emotional instability as a factor supporting the custody award to the respondent
Summary of this case from Bernson v. BernsonOpinion
20589
January 26, 1978.
Kenneth C. Porter and James H. Lengel, of Greenville, for Appellant, cite: As to error in awarding custody of the parties' minor child to the husband-father: 214 S.C. 370, 52 S.E.2d 708; 204 S.C. 374, 29 S.E.2d 488; 246 S.C. 332, 143 S.E.2d 619; 27B, C.J.S. "Divorce", § 309 (4); 253 S.C. 123, 169 S.E.2d 376; 221 S.C. 391, 70 S.E.2d 625; 121 S.C. 283, 98 S.E.2d 764; 27B C.J.S. "Divorce" § 309 (4), pp. 457-458; 220 S.C. 437, 68 S.E.2d 348; 74 Am. Jur.2d 1075; 71 Cal.App.2d 577, 162 P.2d 995; 27B C.J.S. "Divorce", § 315 (d), p. 495. As to error in failing to award attorney's fees to the Appellant's attorney: 1962 S.C. Code of Laws § 20-112, (§ 20-120, 1976 S.C. Code); 256 S.C. 243, 182 S.E.2d 75.
Grover S. Parnell, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent, cites: As to settled rule in South Carolina that the welfare of the child is the primary, paramount and controlling consideration of the Court in all controversies between parents over the custody of minor: 203 S.C. 556, 28 S.E.2d 89; 231 S.C. 283, 98 S.E.2d 764; 235 S.C. 386, 111 S.E.2d 695; 238 S.C. 521, 121 S.E.2d 4; 242 S.C. 263, 130 S.E.2d 552; 224 S.C. 520, 80 S.E.2d 123; 232 S.C. 12, 100 S.E.2d 531; 235 S.C. 386, 111 S.E.2d 695; 251 S.C. 420, 163 S.E.2d 229; 260 S.C. 108, 194 S.E.2d 392.
January 26, 1978.
This action originally involved the cross actions of the appellant-wife and respondent-husband against each other for divorce and custody of their four-year-old daughter. The lower court denied the demands of both for divorce and granted custody of the child to respondent. No award was made for counsel fees to appellant other than the sum of $125.00 for the hearing on an application for temporary relief. This appeal involves only a review of the award of custody and the entitlement of appellant to an additional award for counsel fees.
A detailed narrative of the facts would serve no useful purpose. The showing of emotional instability of appellant, together with the active concern and attention of the highly responsible paternal grandmother, with whom the child will reside, amply sustains the conclusion of the trial judge that the best interests of the child are served by granting custody to respondent. The specific retention of the court of jurisdiction of the custody of the child assures that the present disposition of the custody issue will be periodically reviewed in order to make such further orders as may be necessary for the child's best interests.
While we affirm the custody award, the failure to grant additional fees for appellant's attorney was error and the cause is remanded to the lower court for the purpose of awarding a reasonable counsel's fee.
Affirmed and remanded for the assessment of attorney's fees.
LITTLEJOHN, NESS, RHODES and GREGORY, JJ., concur.