Broom v. Jennifer J.

Summary

The South Carolina appellate court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights and the child's adoption by foster parents. Although the court held that the mother was erroneously denied appointed counsel in the private termination proceeding, it concluded that she was not prejudiced because the statutory grounds for termination and the child's best interests were established independently. The court also upheld the findings that the child had remained in foster care for fifteen of the preceding twenty-two months and that the mother had failed to visit, and addressed the admission of bonding-expert testimony.

Holdings

1. An indigent parent subject to any termination-of-parental-rights proceeding has an absolute statutory right to appointed counsel under South Carolina Code section 63-7-2560(A), regardless of whether the action was filed by DSS or privately. Although Mother was erroneously denied counsel, reversal was unwarranted because she was represented at the final hearing and failed to show prejudice.
2. The statutory ground for termination based on the child having been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months was established by clear and convincing evidence.
3. Mother's failure to visit the child for eight consecutive months, followed by markedly infrequent visitation, constituted a willful failure to visit and established the statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence.
4. The challenge to the bonding expert's testimony was abandoned because Mother cited no supporting authority beyond a rule encouraging information exchange and did not explain how the ruling constituted an abuse of discretion or caused prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the family court erred by terminating Mother's parental rights after she was denied appointed counsel during portions of the termination proceedings.
2. Whether the statutory grounds that the child had been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months and that Mother willfully failed to visit were established by clear and convincing evidence.
3. Whether the family court erred by permitting an undisclosed bonding expert to testify.

Disposition

affirmed