Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the family court, [appellate courts] review[ ] factual and legal issues de novo.” Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011). “[WJhile retaining the authority to make our own findings of fact, we recognize the superior position of the family court judge in making credibility determinations.” Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 392, 709 S.E.2d 650, 655 (2011). “Stated differently, de novo review neither relieves an appellant of demonstrating error nor requires us to ignore the findings of the family court.” Id. at 388-89, 709 S.E.2d at 654 (emphasis removed). Further, a finding of contempt rests within the sound discretion of the family court. DiMarco v. DiMarco, 393 S.C. 604, 607, 713 S.E.2d 631, 633 (2011). “Such a finding should not be disturbe .E.2d 620, 623 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Lewis, 392 S.C. at 388-89, 709 S.E.2d at 654 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that error will not be presumed from a silent record and that without the relevant transcript there is insufficient evidence to review the alleged error and the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error in the record (B) holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal (C) holding the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating error in the family courts findings of fact (D) holding that it is the duty of the appellant to overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial courts judgment by demonstrating some reversible error (E) holding that the party asserting notice error has the burden of demonstrating prejudice
Output (English): holding that it is the duty of the appellant to overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial courts judgment by demonstrating some reversible error