Court Opinion

ID: 9591544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:04:58.584764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:10.790286
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In this action by respondent Department of Social Services to recover $3,140.46 expended by it for the support of appellant’s child, the family court overruled appellant’s demurrer. I would affirm.
For a period of approximately four years, appellant’s aunt received public assistance from DSS for the support of appellant’s child, who was being cared for by the aunt. In order to receive these benefits, the aunt assigned to DSS her rights to be reimbursed by appellant for the cost of the child’s care. DSS brought this action in family court against appellant to recover the funds paid to the aunt for the child’s support. Appellant demurred, arguing that the family court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a parent’s liability for past support paid by DSS.
The family court has exclusive jurisdiction “to hear and determine proceedings... to compel the support of... a child” and “to order support of a ... child.” S. C. Code Ann. § 20-7-420(11) and (14) (1983 Supp.). Appellant argues that these provisions do not confer jurisdiction upon the family court to order reimbursement of funds expended for past support unless the obligation was previously conferred by agreement or court order. I disagree.
A parent has a continuing obligation to support her child. S. C. Department of Social Services v. Lowman, 269 S. C. 41, *512236 S. E. (2d) 194 (1977). It is a common law duty, embodied by statute, which exists even in the absence of an agreement or court order. The family court clearly has the authority to determine the amount of present and future child support payments. The family court also has the authority to compel the payment of the parent’s past support obligation even though the amount has not been previously established. I would hold that the family court has jurisdiction to determine an action seeking reimbursement from the parent for funds provided for past support of the parent’s child. S. C. Code Ann. § 20-7-840 (1983 Supp.).
I am aware of S. C. Code Ann. § 20-7-90(b) (1983 Supp.) which grants jurisdiction to the circuit court to require a parent to pay support for her child. When read in conjunction with § 20-7-420 (1983 Supp.), this statute must be read as a grant of j urisdiction to the circuit court which is concurrent to the family court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, even though respondent’s action may arguably have been brought in circuit court, the family court also had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The trial judge properly overruled the demurrer.
The majority holds since this is a contract action for payment of a debt, jurisdiction is vested in the circuit court. I disagree.
In the recent case of DSS v. Fingerlin, 328 S. E. (2d) 71 (S. C. 1985), we held the enactment of § 20-7-420 deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction in domestic matters.
I would hold the above section and Fingerlin is dispositive on the issue of jurisdiction and would affirm the family court’s overruling the demurrer.
I would affirm.