Court Opinion

ID: 9617900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:03:21.955183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:19.509432
License: Public Domain

Sanders, Chief Judge
(concurring):
I think perhaps we should say a little more, lest what we have said be misunderstood by the anxious reader.
The result which we reach on the issue of custody should not be construed as implying our approval of the lifestyle of the mother. No moral judgment by us has been necessary because there is no evidence that her lifestyle had any relevancy to the welfare of the child. See Marshall v. Marshall, 282 S. C. 534, 540-41, 320 S. E. (2d) 44, 48 (Ct. App. 1984) (“The morality of a parent is a proper consideration in determining child custody but it is limited in its force to what relevancy it has, either directly or indirectly, to the welfare of the child.”).
We are not in the business of gratuitously judging the private lives of other people.