Court Opinion

ID: 9582039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:21:50.757574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:24.699143
License: Public Domain

Lewis, Chief Justice
(dissenting) :
As postured by the majority, the sole question is whether or not appellants’ petition states a cause of action. The demurrer is upheld on the ground that the complaint states only conclusions of law. I think that the majority opinion disregards material factual allegations of the petition, which, when considered, clearly state a cause of action. I, therefore, dissent.
*103The petition alleged that the infant involved, now about six years of age, had 'been in their custody as his foster parents for a period of eighteen (18) months; that appellants had been approved by the respondent as eligible adoptive parents and they had applied for the adoption of the child; and that although respondent had the authority to consent to the child’s adoption, respondent had failed to grant such consent and now seeks to take custody from appellants. It is further alleged that the best interests .of the child would be served by granting the relief sought. The action of respondent, in withholding consent to the adoption by appellants, is described as unreasonable and arbitrary.
Despite .tibe contention of the majority otherwise, the allegations, that appellants have had custody and care of the infant for eighteen (18) months, that respondent had approved them as adoptive parents, and that the actions of respondent in now attempting to take, custody from them is not in the best interest of the child, are factual and are adequate to withstand demurrer.
Furthermore, even assuming the petition contained only a conclusion of law as claimed by the majority, its defect should not have been remedied by the granting of a demurrer. We have a long-standing principle, to which I would adhere, that:
Generally, pleadings are demurrable where conclusions of law are set forth therein in lieu of pleadable facts; and denials based thereon are insufficient to tender an issue. Yet, where-a pleading is defective in this respect, and such defect can be reached by a motion to make it more specific, the objection cannot be taken by demurrer. Athanas v. City of Spartanburg, 196 S. C. 19, 12 S. E. (2d) 39. (Emphasis added.)
Although the majority does not address the issue of standing, I would hold that these foster parents who have custody of the child have standing to bring this action.
I respectfully dissent.
Gregory, J., concurs.