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.
Dorchester County Department of Social Services v. Miller
Citations: 324 S.C. 445; 477 S.E.2d 476; 1996 S.C. App. LEXIS 153Docket: No. 2576
Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina; October 14, 1996; South Carolina; State Appellate Court
The family court judge conducted a review hearing concerning the status of Shaniqua Lashia Sement, Shequana Miller, and Shia Erra Miller, children previously removed from their mother, Angela Miller, by the Department of Social Services (DSS). Angela Miller appealed the judge’s order, which determined that a treatment plan for potential reunification was unnecessary. The court affirmed this decision. Shaniqua was born on May 26, 1989, and at two months old was placed into foster care due to severe abuse resulting in permanent brain damage and other serious health issues. She remained in foster care for approximately two years while Angela completed a treatment plan that included counseling and parenting classes, after which she regained custody in September 1991. In November 1991, Shequana was born, and by early 1992, Angela moved to New York with both children. In July 1992, both children were removed from Angela’s care after severe physical abuse was discovered, including extensive bruising and cigarette burns on Shaniqua. Angela was charged with assault and received probation. The New York court determined the children were neglected, leading to their placement in foster care and the creation of a new treatment plan for Angela, which she partially completed. Shaniqua and Shequana returned to Dorchester County on May 27, 1993, and were placed with the same foster family. Upon their return, Shaniqua displayed significant emotional and behavioral issues. Legal custody of the children was transferred to Dorchester County DSS on April 8, 1994. Throughout this period, Angela maintained supervised visitation, during which she received additional support services. However, the ongoing contact with their mother caused distress for the children, particularly Shaniqua, whose anxiety affected her school performance. In January 1994, Mother gave birth to Shia Erra Miller, son of Timothy Benjamin. On January 21, 1994, Dorchester County DSS intervened to protect Shia Erra due to a history of physical abuse involving Mother and her two older children. An ex parte order was issued on January 24, 1994, removing Shia Erra from Mother's custody. The Rices sought to intervene in the case and filed for private adoption to terminate Mother's parental rights for Shaniqua and Shequana. A hearing on this motion occurred on May 26, 1994, leading to a June 20, 1994 order consolidating the cases, allowing Rices to intervene, and appointing a supervising therapist for the older children. The judge imposed restrictions on therapy services for Shaniqua and Shequana until an approved treatment plan was established. A treatment plan was implemented on July 19, 1994, for Shaniqua and Shequana, while an order on July 7, 1994, addressed DSS's intervention concerning Shia Erra. This plan mandated that Mother complete various therapeutic requirements, including counseling and psychological evaluation. All cases involving Mother were consolidated, and she was required to fulfill the treatment plan. On January 26, 1995, a hearing reviewed the cases involving DSS and the Rices. Ultimately, custody of Shia Erra was awarded to his paternal grandmother, excluding him from the appeal. Testimony revealed that Shaniqua exhibited significant behavioral changes upon returning from previous placements, including aggression and distrust towards adults, which worsened after visits with Mother. Carol Seltzer, the Guardian ad Litem, became involved in May 1994 and noted the children's thriving condition with the Rices but was unable to assess the potential for reunification with Mother due to her lack of communication. Seltzer recommended the cessation of Mother's visitation rights based on insights from the children's therapist, school staff, and her own observations, noting that Mother had not complied with the family court's counseling orders. Lavern Martin, a DSS foster care caseworker involved for about a year, submitted a new treatment plan to the court during the hearing, succeeding a previous plan from February 1994 intended to facilitate Mother's reunification with her children. However, a court order on February 25, 1995, concluded that such reunification was against the children's best interests due to the serious and chronic nature of abuse, despite Mother's completion of two prior treatment plans. The judge ruled Mother should have no contact with her two oldest children, ordered DSS to stop services aimed at reuniting them, and maintained a restraining order against removing the children from their current foster home. The legal issue at hand is whether the trial court erred by not requiring DSS to create a detailed treatment plan outlining the steps for the children’s potential return home, including identifying obstacles, services for Mother, and required actions for custody restoration per S.C.Code Ann. 20-7-764. The appellate court has the authority to correct legal errors and evaluate factual findings, but must defer to the trial court's credibility assessments of witnesses, especially in matters affecting children's welfare. Mother contends the trial court's decision to not mandate a treatment plan from DSS was erroneous, referencing the legal requirement for an approved placement plan after a removal hearing. The agency is required to submit a detailed plan to the court regarding the placement of a child, steps for returning the child home, and actions to maintain parent-child ties, ideally with input from the parents and relevant parties. This plan must be presented at the hearing. Section 20-7-764 mandates the formulation of a treatment plan after a removal hearing, while the current case arises from a judicial review hearing, which is distinct from a removal hearing and does not necessitate a treatment plan under Section 20-7-766. Therefore, the mother's argument relying on Section 20-7-764 is unfounded. Despite no removal hearing in Dorchester County, a treatment plan from a prior New York removal proceeding was appropriately implemented by Dorchester County DSS. The mother claims only one treatment plan was created concerning Shia Erra, but in reality, she benefited from three treatment plans: the 1989 Dorchester County plan after Shaniqua's removal, the 1992 Orange County plan upon the removal of Shaniqua and Shequana, and a 1994 Dorchester County plan that included all of her children. The mother had not completed the Orange County treatment plan by April 1993, which meant the case remained open. A treatment plan was also established following a May 1994 hearing involving Shia Erra, which consolidated all cases concerning the mother and her children. The court determined, based on evidence, that a treatment plan was unnecessary for reunification with Shaniqua and Shequana, as it would not be in the children's best interests, given the severe and recurring nature of the abuse inflicted by the mother. Testimonies from involved parties highlighted the mother's admission of guilt for the abuse and the resulting serious injuries sustained by Shaniqua. The case involves serious and chronic abuse rather than minor discipline issues. Despite the mother's completion of two Treatment Plans, a pattern of abuse persisted, prompting the Court to prioritize the children's safety over the mother's needs. The DSS caseworker lacked knowledge about the abuse or the mother's accountability, yet services continued to her, aiming for reunification. However, substantial evidence indicated the mother's inability to accept responsibility or change her behavior. The trial judge determined that reunification with the mother was not in the children's best interests, affirming that she could not be trusted with their care. The judicial review hearing did not require DSS to present a treatment plan, resulting in the family court judge's order being upheld. The decision was reached without oral argument as it was deemed unnecessary.