Arnal v. Fraser, 371 S.C. 512

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed four family court orders arising from post-divorce proceedings involving child support, medical and educational expenses, visitation, appointment of a medical guardian ad litem, and contempt. The court held that the family court retained jurisdiction to enforce certain payment obligations but lacked jurisdiction to modify visitation during a pending appeal. It affirmed the orders concerning medical expenses, educational expenses, and denial of a medical guardian ad litem, while reversing the suspension of overnight visitation and the contempt finding.

Holdings

1. The UCCJA and PKPA did not govern the issues presented because no other state was competing with South Carolina for jurisdiction and the action did not involve a custody dispute. Rules 205 and 225, SCACR, governed whether the family court could act while the earlier appeal was pending.
2. The family court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing Father's obligation to pay his required share of the uncovered medical expenses.
3. The family court did not abuse its discretion by requiring both parents to share the costs of language tutoring, therapy, and other educational expenses.
4. The family court lacked jurisdiction to modify Father's visitation while the visitation provisions of the divorce order were pending on appeal, making the order suspending overnight visitation void.
5. The family court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint a guardian ad litem solely for medical determinations.
6. Father could not be held in contempt for violating an order that was void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction; the contempt finding and related bench warrant were therefore reversed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the family court's current action was barred by lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJA or PKPA or, instead, governed by Rules 205 and 225, SCACR.
2. Whether the family court could enforce Father's obligation to pay uncovered medical expenses while the earlier appeal was pending.
3. Whether the family court could require the parents to share educational and other non-medical expenses not addressed in the final divorce order.
4. Whether the family court had jurisdiction to suspend Father's overnight visitation while the visitation provisions of the divorce order were on appeal.
5. Whether the family court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint a medical guardian ad litem.
6. Whether the contempt finding, purge conditions, and resulting bench warrant violated Father's constitutional due-process rights.

Disposition

reversed