UP-287 - Saunders v. Palomares

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 David Michael Saunders and Leticia Marie Saunders, Respondents, v. Jonathan Jose Palomares, Ashley Yvonne Bernadette Simon, and Mallory Palomares, Defendants, Of Whom Jonathan Jose Palomares is the Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2013-000033 Appeal From Chesterfield County Roger E. Henderson, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-287 Submitted June 25, 2014 Filed July 11, 2014 AFFIRMED Earnest Deon O'Neil, of The Law Office of Deon O'Neil and Bertila Ivane Delora Boyd, of Bostic and Boyd, LLC, both of Columbia, for Appellant. David Michael Saunders and Leticia Marie Saunders, both of Hartsville, pro se. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570(3) (2010) (stating a statutory ground for termination of parental rights is met if the child has been out of the home for a period of six months and the parent has wilfully failed to visit the child); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Headden, 354 S.C. 602, 610, 582 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2003) ("Whether a parent's failure to visit is 'wilful' is a question of intent to be determined from the facts and circumstances of each individual case."); id. at 610, 582 S.E.2d at 424 ("The [family court] is given wide discretion in making this determination."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Smith, 343 S.C. 129, 133, 538 S.E.2d 285, 287 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating the best interest of the child is "the paramount consideration"); Charleston Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. King, 369 S.C. 96, 10304, 631 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2006) (stating the factors set out in Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75, 386 S.E.2d 456 (1989), "apply where a natural parent, who has voluntarily relinquished custody of his child, seeks to reclaim custody from a third party. The Moore factors cannot apply in the termination of parental rights situation because that situation is governed by statute."). AFFIRMED.1 WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.