Kay v. Rowland

331 S.E.2d 781, 285 S.C. 516, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 444
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJune 11, 1985
Docket22342
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 331 S.E.2d 781 (Kay v. Rowland) 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
Kay v. Rowland, 331 S.E.2d 781, 285 S.C. 516, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 444 (S.C. 1985).

Opinion

Gregory, Justice:

This is a custody dispute between the natural father and the maternal grandmother of a six-year-old child. 1 The Family Court found the father fit and proper, and awarded him custody. The grandmother appeals. We affirm.

The parties argue the applicability of this Court’s recent decision in McDowell v. Richardson, 279 S. C. 268, 305 S. E. (2d) 577 (1983). In McDowell, we held it was error to award custody to a grandparent absent a finding that the natural parent was unfit. Thus, we recognized the superior rights of a natural parent in a custody dispute with a third party. Once the natural parent is deemed fit, the issue of custody is decided.

The trial judge found respondent to be a fit and proper parent. The record adequately supports his conclusion. Therefore, he properly awarded custody to respondent. 2 The lower court’s order is accordingly

Affirmed.

Littlejohn, C. J., and Ness, Harwell and Chandler, JJ., concur.
1

The child’s maternal grandmother was permitted to intervene in the divorce action on the issue of custody. Her daughter, the natural mother, does not contest custody, and there is no contention that she would be a proper custodial parent.

2

The trial judge recognized appellant’s close relationship with her grandson, and awarded her generous visitation privileges.

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

Related

Fields v. Rapley
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2025
Alukonis v. Smith
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2020
Urban v. Kerscher
817 S.E.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2018)
Freeman v. Miller
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2016
Jesse G. v. South Carolina Department of Social Services
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2009
In the Matter of Guardianship of Meo
2006 WY 87 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2006)
Polson v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006
McDermott v. Dougherty
869 A.2d 751 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2005)
Brown v. Brown
606 S.E.2d 785 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2004)
Tapeni v. Tapeni
6 Am. Samoa 3d 81 (High Court of American Samoa, 2002)
Baker v. Wolfe
510 S.E.2d 726 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1998)
Dodge v. Dodge
505 S.E.2d 344 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1998)
Harrison v. Ballington
498 S.E.2d 680 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1998)
Kramer v. Kramer
473 S.E.2d 846 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1996)
Sanders v. Emery
452 S.E.2d 636 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1994)
Hogan v. Platts
480 S.E.2d 510 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1993)
Malpass v. Hodson
424 S.E.2d 470 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 S.E.2d 781, 285 S.C. 516, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kay-v-rowland-sc-1985.