Wilson v. Wilson

330 S.E.2d 303, 285 S.C. 481, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 428

• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Decided: May 17, 1985
• Docket: 22327
• Status: Published

Opinions

Ness, Justice:

In this child custody suit the family court granted custody to respondent husband. We affirm.

The couple married in 1978 and a child was born to them. Appellant wife was granted temporary custody of the child when the couple separated in 1981. Respondent husband bcame suspicious his wife was seeing another man after the separation and placed surveillance upon her.

In 1983 the family court granted the husband a divorce based on the wife’s adultery and awarded him permanent custody of the child. His order afforded the wife reasonable visitation but forbid any visitation when the wife was in the presence of her paramour.

Appellant wife contests the custody award alleging the family court based his decision on her immorality rather than the best interest of the child. We disagree.

While the record reflects both parents love the child and the child returns their love equally, the wife openly entered a relationship with another man while still the wife of respondent.

While the controlling consideration in determining custody is the welfare of the child and what is in his interest, Powell v. Powell, 256 S. C. 111, 181 S. E. (2d) 13 (1971), the morality of a parent bears on that parent’s fitness to raise the child and is a proper factor for consideration. Davenport v. Davenport, 265 S. C. 524, 220 S. E. (2d) (1975); Marshall v. Marshall, 282 S. C. 534, 320 S. C. (2d) 44 (S. C. App. 1984).

We are mindful of the difficult task facing the family court in deciding custody. Although our scope of review allows us to find the facts in accordance with our view of the preponderance of the evidence, we give broad discretion to the family court judge who has observed the witnesses and is in a better position to judge their demeanor and veracity. McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S. C. 481, 299 S. E. (2d) 322 (1982).

The other exceptions were rendered moot by admissions of attorneys at oral argument.

We hold the family court did not abuse his discretion by awarding custody to the husband.

Affirmed.

Littlejohn, C. J., and Harwell and Chandler, JJ., concur. Gregory, J., dissenting in separate opinion.