Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2012-208866 Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-582
10-31-2012
South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent, v. Jessica Scott, Joseph Hernandez, Mark Scott, George Branham, Defendants, Of Whom George Branham is the Appellant, In the Interest of Minors under the age of 18 years.
Jeffrey M. Tzerman, of Camden, for Appellant. Virginia Ann Mullikin, of South Carolina Department of Social Services, of Camden, for Respondent.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Appeal From Kershaw County
W. Thomas Sprott, Jr., Family Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Jeffrey M. Tzerman, of Camden, for Appellant.
Virginia Ann Mullikin, of South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Camden, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Buist v. Buist, _ S.C. _, _, 730 S.E.2d 879, 885 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[T]he welfare and best interests of the child are the primary considerations in determining visitation. Similarly, visitation is addressed to the broad discretion of the family court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse." (citation omitted)); Frye v. Frye, 323 S.C. 72, 76, 448 S.E.2d 586, 588 (Ct. App. 1994) ("A family court may impose upon a noncustodial parent such conditions and restrictions on his visitation privileges as the court, in its discretion, thinks proper."). AFFIRMED.
We note both parties agree the current order denying phone visitation imposes a condition that requires the children to seek counseling before any visitation can be revisited. While the family court had the discretion to impose this condition, the family court may also revisit this condition in the future.
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
--------