John Doe v. Baby Boy

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court John and Jane Doe, Adoptive Couple, Respondents, v. Baby Boy, a minor child under the age of fourteen years; and Birth Father, Defendants, of whom Birth Father is Appellant. Appeal from Greenville County Timothy L. Brown, Family Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2008-MO-009 Heard January 22, 2008 – Filed February 11, 2008 AFFIRMED Robert L. Widener, of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, for Appellant. Raymond William Godwin, of Greenville, for Respondents. Stephen A. Yacobi, of Yacobi Law Firm, of Greenville, Guardian Ad Litem. PER CURIAM: The Notice of Appeal was not timely served, however, we exercise our prerogative and issue a common law writ of certiorari to review the family court order. See Ray v. State, 330 S.C. 184, 498 S.E.2d 640, n.1 (1998). The scope of our appellate review is therefore limited to the correction of errors of law. E.g., Rowe v. City of West Columbia, 334 S.C. 400, 513 S.E.2d 379 (Ct. App. 1999). Applying this standard, we find no reversible error in the family court’s denial of appellant’s request for a continuance, nor in the ruling that appellant did not satisfy the consent/relinquishment provision of S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1690(A)(5). Even if we were to reach the court’s alternative ruling that there was evidence to warrant termination of appellant’s rights, we would find no error of law. The order under appeal is therefore AFFIRMED. [1] TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur. [1] We note that we would have reached the same conclusion had the appeal been timely, permitting the Court to take its own view of the evidence.