SC Department of Social Services v. Priscilla

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 13, 2007
• Docket: 2007-UP-524
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Priscilla I., sic Corcella I., and Michael I. Appellants.

In the interest of: H. I., T. I., J. I., and N. I.; all minors under the age of 18.

---

Appeal From Florence County
 Jerry D. Vinson, Jr., Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2007-UP-524
Submitted November 1, 2007 – Filed November 13, 2007

---

AFFIRMED

---

E. Hood Temple and M. Scott Taylor, both of Florence, for Appellants.

Newton L. Howle, of Florence, for Respondent.

Stacy E. Thompson, of Columbia, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Parents appeal from an order of the family court which prohibited them from home-schooling their children until further order of the court.  Parents argue this provision in the order violates their constitutionally-protected parental rights.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-764 (H) (1976) (“Any objections to the sufficiency of a plan or the process by which a plan was developed must be made at the hearing on the plan.  Failure to request a hearing or to enter an objection at the hearing constitutes a waiver of the objection.”); State v. Varvil, 338 S.C. 335, 339, 526 S.E.2d 248, 250 (Ct. App. 2000) (“[C]onstitutional arguments are no exception to the [error preservation] rule, and if not raised to the trial court are deemed waived on appeal.”); and State v. Byram, 326 S.C. 107, 113, 485 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1997) ( “[A] constitutional argument is not preserved for appeal where appellant failed to argue the constitutional basis for his request at trial.”). [1]

Therefore, the family court’s order is

AFFIRMED. [2]

HEARN, C.J., and KITTREDGE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.   

---

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

[2]  On November 30, 2006, Appellants’ counsel filed a supplemental motion with this court asking to be relieved as counsel; we hereby grant the motion.