Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Edwards v. Elby
Citations: 284 S.C. 131; 326 S.E.2d 408Docket: 22218
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina; January 22, 1985; South Carolina; State Supreme Court
An appeal was made regarding a family court order that validated signed consents and waivers for terminating the parental rights of Darlene Hars and denied her motion to dismiss the case based on the absence of a hearing within thirty days. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating it had the jurisdiction to correct legal errors and make factual findings based on the preponderance of evidence. After law enforcement took Terri and Benjamin Hars into emergency protective custody, the Richland County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition to remove the children from their parents. Darlene Hars moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the required hearing was not held within the statutory timeframe and that her consent to terminate her parental rights was signed involuntarily. Both motions were denied by the court. On May 19, 1982, the children were taken into protective custody, and DSS initiated removal proceedings the following day. Darlene Hars was appointed counsel on June 30, 1982, and moved to dismiss the petition on July 9, claiming the lack of a timely hearing. Concurrently, her husband, Mr. Hars, faced charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct against their children, ultimately pleading no contest to a lesser charge. Darlene Hars signed adoption consent forms on August 11, 1982, without consulting her attorney. During the hearing to vacate these consents, she claimed a DSS worker insisted her signature was necessary for her husband's plea deal. However, both the solicitor and Mr. Hars' counsel testified that they informed her that her consent was not a condition of the plea bargain, and that signing the plea could jeopardize their custody of the children. Darlene, who had completed high school, indicated she understood the forms she signed. The court found no coercion in the solicitation of her consent and concluded that Darlene Hars voluntarily signed the forms, thereby lacking the standing to dismiss the removal petition. The decision was affirmed by the court, with the concurrence of Chief Justice Littlejohn and Justices Ness, Gregory, and Harwell.