Bolding v. Bolding

293 S.E.2d 699, 278 S.C. 129, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 377
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJune 15, 1982
Docket21734
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 293 S.E.2d 699 (Bolding v. Bolding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bolding v. Bolding, 293 S.E.2d 699, 278 S.C. 129, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 377 (S.C. 1982).

Opinions

Lewis, Chief Justice:

Barry N. Bolding (Father) commenced this action seeking custody of the eleven-year-old son of the parties. Approximately one year earlier, the divorce decree had granted custody of- the son and his seven-year-old sister to Brenda. E. Bolding (Mother). The lower court transferred custody of the son to Father; Mother appeals. We reverse, holding that the trial judge erred in transferring custody when the only change of condition alleged was that the son wished to live with Father so that he would be near old friends and could attend school with them.

In order to justify a change of custody, the party seeking the transfer bears the burden of establishing a material change of conditions substantially affecting the welfare of the child. Lowe v. Bindley, 272 S. C. 143, 249 S. E. (2d) 750 (1978). The significance to be attached to the wishes of the child in a custody dispute depends upon the age of the child and the attendant circumstances. The wishes of a child of any age may be considered under all the circumstances, but the weight given to those wishes must be dominated by what is best for the welfare of the child. Smith v. Smith. 261 S. C. 81, 198 S. E. (2d) 271 (1973).

[131]*131We hold Father failed in his burden of establishing a change of condition sufficient to warrant a transfer of custody, as the only change alleged or proved involved the wishes of the eleven-year-old child. See Smith v. Smith, supra, (involving a seven-year-old child) and Moorhead v. Scott, 259 S. C. 580, 193 S. E. (2d) 510 (1972) (involving children aged eight, eleven, and twelve).

Reversed.

Littlejohn, Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur. Ness, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Huggins v. Pritchett
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2015
Tillman v. Oakes
728 S.E.2d 45 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2012)
Brunson v. Brunson
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006
Brown v. Brown
606 S.E.2d 785 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2004)
Shirley v. Shirley
536 S.E.2d 427 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2000)
Housand v. Housand
509 S.E.2d 827 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1998)
Perry v. Perry
433 S.E.2d 911 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1993)
Aiken v. Nelson
356 S.E.2d 839 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1987)
Fisher v. Miller
344 S.E.2d 149 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
293 S.E.2d 699, 278 S.C. 129, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolding-v-bolding-sc-1982.