Charleston County Department of Social Services v. Grant

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

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

Charleston County Department of Social Services,
Respondent,

v.

Willie Mae Grant, William Creel and John Doe  and   Ke Shundra Charmain
Bianca Creel, a child, D/O/B 5/29/91; W. Jay Zahn Asaas Armand Creel,
II, a child, D/O/B 12/16/92, Defendants,

of whom William Creel is Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

 Frances  P. Segars-Andrews, Family
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-046

Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January
19, 2005

AFFIRMED

B. Craig Killough and
Arthur C. Pelzer, both of Charleston, for Appellant.

Frampton Durban, Jr.
and Sally C. Dey, both of North Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this family court action, William
Creel alleges the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights.  Creel
fails to take exception, however, to a number of grounds on which the family
court relied.  Failure to argue these issues is an abandonment and precludes
consideration of them on appeal.  Biales v. Young, 315 S.C. 166, 168,
432 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1993).  Furthermore, where a trial court rules on more
than one ground, an unappealed ground will become the law of the case and the
trial court’s ruling will be affirmed.  Anderson v. Short, 323 S.C. 522,
525, 476 S.E.2d 475, 477 (1996). 

The family court based termination of Creel’s parental
rights, in part, on the fact that the children have been in foster care for
15 of the last 22 months and have been out of the home for six months and the
parent has not remedied the conditions which caused their removal.  See
S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572(2) & (8) (Supp. 2004).  After a thorough review
of the record we are convinced that termination is in the children’s best interests. 
See Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 579, 578 S.E.2d 733, 735
(Ct. App. 2003).  Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s decision.  See
Dwyer v. Tom Jenkins Realty, Inc., 289 S.C. 118, 120-121, 344 S.E.2d
886, 888 (Ct. App. 1986) (affirming the circuit court when unchallenged alternative
findings support the judgment); 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 829
at 489 (1995) (“where a separate and independent ground from the one appealed
supports the judgment made below, and is not challenged on appeal, the appellate
court must affirm.”).  In light of our ruling, we need not address the merits
of the other issues raised on appeal.  See Rule 220 (c), SCACR; Futch
v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d
591, 598 (1999) (holding appellate courts need not address remaining issues
when the disposition of a prior issue is dispositive). 

AFFIRMED. [1]

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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