SC Department of Social Services v. Priscilla

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

South Carolina
Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Priscilla I.,
sic Corcella I., and Michael I. Appellants.

In the interest
of: H. I., T. I., J. I., and N. I.; all minors under the age of 18.

Appeal From Florence County

 Jerry D. Vinson, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2007-UP-524

Submitted November 1, 2007 – Filed
November 13, 2007

AFFIRMED

E. Hood Temple and M. Scott Taylor, both of Florence, for
Appellants.

Newton L. Howle, of Florence, for Respondent.

Stacy E. Thompson, of Columbia, for
Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Parents
appeal from an order of the family court which prohibited them from
home-schooling their children until further order of the court.  Parents argue
this provision in the order violates their constitutionally-protected parental
rights.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-764 (H)
(1976) (“Any objections to the sufficiency of a plan or the process by which a
plan was developed must be made at the hearing on the plan.  Failure to request
a hearing or to enter an objection at the hearing constitutes a waiver of the
objection.”); State v. Varvil, 338 S.C. 335, 339, 526 S.E.2d 248, 250 (Ct.
App. 2000) (“[C]onstitutional arguments are no exception to the [error preservation]
rule, and if not raised to the trial court are deemed waived on appeal.”); and State
v. Byram, 326 S.C. 107, 113, 485 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1997) ( “[A]
constitutional argument is not preserved for appeal where appellant failed to
argue the constitutional basis for his request at trial.”). [1]

Therefore, the family court’s order is

AFFIRMED. [2]

HEARN, C.J., and KITTREDGE and THOMAS,
JJ., concur.   

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

[2]  On November 30, 2006, Appellants’
counsel filed a supplemental motion with this court asking to be relieved as
counsel; we hereby grant the motion.