Charleston County Department of Social Services v. Grant

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 19, 2005
• Docket: 2005-UP-046
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Charleston County Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Willie Mae Grant, William Creel and John Doe  and   Ke Shundra Charmain Bianca Creel, a child, D/O/B 5/29/91; W. Jay Zahn Asaas Armand Creel, II, a child, D/O/B 12/16/92, Defendants,

of whom William Creel is Appellant.

---

Appeal From Charleston County
 Frances  P. Segars-Andrews, Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-046
Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January 19, 2005

---

AFFIRMED

---

B. Craig Killough and Arthur C. Pelzer, both of Charleston, for Appellant.

Frampton Durban, Jr. and Sally C. Dey, both of North Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this family court action, William Creel alleges the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights.  Creel fails to take exception, however, to a number of grounds on which the family court relied.  Failure to argue these issues is an abandonment and precludes consideration of them on appeal.  Biales v. Young, 315 S.C. 166, 168, 432 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1993).  Furthermore, where a trial court rules on more than one ground, an unappealed ground will become the law of the case and the trial court’s ruling will be affirmed.  Anderson v. Short, 323 S.C. 522, 525, 476 S.E.2d 475, 477 (1996). 

The family court based termination of Creel’s parental rights, in part, on the fact that the children have been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months and have been out of the home for six months and the parent has not remedied the conditions which caused their removal.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572(2) & (8) (Supp. 2004).  After a thorough review of the record we are convinced that termination is in the children’s best interests.  See Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735 (Ct. App. 2003).  Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s decision.  See Dwyer v. Tom Jenkins Realty, Inc., 289 S.C. 118, 120-121, 344 S.E.2d 886, 888 (Ct. App. 1986) (affirming the circuit court when unchallenged alternative findings support the judgment); 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 829 at 489 (1995) (“where a separate and independent ground from the one appealed supports the judgment made below, and is not challenged on appeal, the appellate court must affirm.”).  In light of our ruling, we need not address the merits of the other issues raised on appeal.  See Rule 220 (c), SCACR; Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding appellate courts need not address remaining issues when the disposition of a prior issue is dispositive). 

AFFIRMED. [1]

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

---

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