Stroman v. Robinson

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 7, 2005
• Docket: 2005-UP-005
• Status: Unpublished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

Ronald D. Stroman,        Respondent,

v.

Janie Robinson,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Anne Gue Jones, Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-005
Submitted December 1, 2004 – Filed January 7, 2005

---

AFFIRMED

---

Janie Robinson, of Orangeburg, for Appellant, pro se.

Ronald Dewey Stroman, Sr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Janie Robinson appeals from a family court order modifying a previous visitation order and holding her in contempt for failing to allow Ronald D. Stroman visitation with the parties’ child.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-420(36) (Supp. 2003) (granting the family court jurisdiction to issue orders compelling investigation by the Department of Social Services); Rule 208(b)(1)(B) (“The statement [of issues on appeal] shall be concise and direct as to each issue . . . .  Broad general statements may be disregarded by the appellate court. Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal.”); Rule 208(b)(1)(D) (“At the head of each part, the particular issue to be addressed shall be set forth in distinctive type, followed by discussion and citations of authority.”); Rule 208(b)(4) (“The brief shall contain references to the transcript, pleadings, orders, exhibits, or other materials which may be properly included in the Record on Appeal [see Rule 210(c)] to support the salient facts alleged.”);  State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 265 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) (“A pro se litigant who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural requirements of the law.”); Pirayesh v. Pirayesh,  359 S.C. 284, 299, 596 S.E.2d 505, 513 (Ct. App. 2004) (applying the best interest of the child standard when considering a parent’s ability to travel with his or her children); Paparella v. Paparella, 340 S.C. 186, 191, 531 S.E.2d 297, 300 (Ct. App. 2000) (“As with child custody, the 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.”). 

AFFIRMED.

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

---

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