Court Opinion

ID: 9587683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:25:12.311822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:32.081432
License: Public Domain

Goolsby, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
The children’s move to northern Virginia is not in their best interests because it deprives them of the close relationship they enjoyed with their father. See Thompson v. Brunson, 283 S.C. 221, 321 S.E. (2d) 622 (Ct. App. 1984) (in custody matters the paramount consideration is the children’s best interests).
While the parents were married, the father helped care for the children by performing such duties as bathing and dressing them. He also participated in sports and after-school activities with his children.
Now the father is forced to make a sixteen-hour round-trip drive to see his children. He must visit with the children in a hotel room. Not only is this situation financially and physically draining for the father, but, most importantly, it diminishes both the quality and quantity of time the father spends with his children. This situation makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the father to maintain the close relationship he has developed with his children.
Moreover, I fail to see any pressing need that justifies the move. Although the mother has a better job in Virginia than she had in Greenville, she admits she did not look for a job with another employer in Greenville.
Finally, although the majority notes the mother’s move was contemplated at the time of the divorce, the divorce decree explicitly states, “The Court made the determinations set forth in the present order based upon the circumstances that *521existed at the time of the final hearing and did not take into consideration any changes occasioned by [the mother’s] move from the Greenville area. ” (Emphasis added.)
I, therefore, would reverse the family court’s decision and order the mother either to return to the Greenville area with the children or to relinquish their custody to the father.