Milton Sojo v. Audrey and Joshua Camerire

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Milton Sojo, Appellant,

v.

Audrey and Joshua Camerire, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2024-001337

Appeal From Lancaster County
Coreen B. Khoury, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-233
Submitted March 2, 2026 – Filed May 20, 2026

AFFIRMED

Kenneth Philip Shabel, of Kennedy & Brannon, P.A., of
Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Jonathan Drew Hammond, of Greenville, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Milton Sojo (Father) appeals a family court order denying his
request to unseal the file of a 2018 action in which the family court terminated his
parental rights to his and Audrey Camerire's (Mother's) minor child (Child) and
allowed Joshua Camerire (Stepfather) to adopt Child. On appeal, he argues
Mother and Stepfather (collectively, Respondents) obtained the adoption decree by
way of a fraudulent affidavit to support service by publication. We affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

Initially, we hold Father's argument is not preserved for appellate review because
although Father raised fraud in his complaint and at the family court hearing, the
family court did not expressly rule on whether any of the statements in the affidavit
were false or if Respondents committed fraud when they sought to serve him by
publication, and Father failed to request a ruling in his motion for reconsideration.
See Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 54 (Ct. App. 2006) (stating an
issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the family court in order to be
preserved for review); Bodkin v. Bodkin, 388 S.C. 203, 219, 694 S.E.2d 230, 239
(Ct. App. 2010) ("When the family court does not rule on an issue presented to it,
the issue must be raised by a post-trial motion to be preserved for appeal.").

Nonetheless, we hold the family court did not err in denying Father's request to
unseal the adoption record because Father failed to show Respondents obtained the
adoption decree by way of a fraudulent affidavit to support service by publication;
thus, he failed to show good cause to unseal the record. See Stone v. Thompson,
428 S.C. 79, 91, 833 S.E.2d 266, 272 (2019) ("Appellate courts review family
court matters de novo, with the exceptions of evidentiary and procedural rulings.");
Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 385, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651-52 (2011) (stating de novo
review does not require this court to ignore the fact that the family court, which
saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility
and assign comparative weight to their testimony); Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593,
595, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) (providing de novo review also does not relieve
an appellant of the burden of showing that the preponderance of the evidence is
against the family court's findings); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-9-780(B) (2010) ("All
papers and records pertaining to the adoption and filed with the clerk of court are
confidential from the time of filing and upon entry of the final adoption decree
must be sealed and kept as a permanent record of the court and withheld from
inspection."); id. ("No person may have access to the records except for good cause
shown by order of the judge of the court in which the decree of adoption was
entered."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-9-710(3), (6) (2005) ("When the person on whom
the service of the summons is to be made cannot, after due diligence, be found
within the State and (a) that fact appears by affidavit to the satisfaction of the court
or judge thereof . . . and (b) it in like manner appears that a cause of action exists
against the defendant in respect to whom the service is to be made . . . , the court[
or] judge . . . may grant an order that the service be made by the publication of the
summons in any one or more of the following cases: . . . when the defendant is a
resident of this State and after a diligent search cannot be found[ or] . . . when the
defendant is a party to an adoption proceeding and is either a nonresident or a
person upon whom service cannot be had within the State after due diligence
. . . ."); Yarborough v. Collins, 293 S.C. 290, 292-93, 360 S.E.2d 300, 301 (1987)
(stating section 15-9-710 "does not specify the character of the facts and
circumstances which must be stated in the affidavit or the quantity of evidence
necessary to satisfy the officer before ordering publication"; rather, the statute
"simply requires that it must appear to [the issuing officer's] satisfaction . . . [and]
when he is satisfied, in the absence of fraud or collusion, it is final" (second
alteration in original) (quoting Yates v. Gridley, 16 S.C. 496, 499-500 (1882))).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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