In the Interest of Christopher H.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court In the Interest of Christopher H., a Juvenile under the age of Seventeen, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2021-000371 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Appeal from Richland County W. Greg Seigler, Family Court Judge Opinion No. 28097 Submitted April 6, 2022 - Filed June 8, 2022 DISMISSED Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, of Columbia; Solicitor, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Samuel R. Hubbard III, of Lexington, all for Petitioner. Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals decision in Int. of Christopher H., 432 S.C. 600, 854 S.E.2d 853 (Ct. App. 2021). We agreed to address whether the court of appeals: 1) improperly interpreted subsection 23-3-430(D) of the South Carolina Code (2007) and the legislative intent behind it; 2) improperly ignored the proper standard of appellate review by weighing evidence and substituting its own interpretation of the evidence for that of the family court; and 3) improperly based its decision only on testimony presented at the family court hearing while ignoring the other evidence supporting the family court's determination of good cause. Shortly before oral argument was to be heard in this Court, the Governor signed into law Act 221 of 2022, which substantially amended subsection 23-3-430(D) and enacted section 23-3-436. Act No. 221, 2022 S.C. Acts ___, ___. After reviewing Act 221, the Court directed its Clerk to write the parties asking them to be prepared to discuss justiciability at oral argument. The State then filed a motion to dismiss its petition on the ground Act 221 rendered the issues moot and asking the Court to vacate the opinion of the court of appeals. Respondent filed a return indicating his consent to the dismissal but opposing the State's request to vacate the opinion of the court of appeals. After careful consideration, we agree the issues before the Court are now moot, and without reaching the merits of those issues, we dismiss the petition for a writ of certiorari. We decline, however, to vacate the opinion of the court of appeals. DISMISSED. BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur. JAMES, J., not participating.
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.
