SCDSS v. Andy M.

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 Court of Appeals South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent, v. Melissa Angela M. and Andy M., of whom Andy M. is Appellant. Appeal From Greenville County Peter R. Nuessle, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-033 Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January 14, 2009 AFFIRMED Rodney Richey, of Greenville, for Appellant. Deborah Murdock, of Greenville, for Respondent. Robert A. Clark, of Greenville, for Guardian Ad Litem. PER CURIAM: Andy M. (Father) appeals the trial court’s denial of his continuance motion at a hearing on the merits where the South Carolina Department of Social Services sought a finding of educational neglect and substantial risk of physical neglect by Father with regard to his son. Father argues the trial court should have granted the continuance because Father was appearing in Federal Bankruptcy Court the day of the hearing, and “the bankruptcy court has priority over the family court.” We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266, 609 S.E.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding the granting of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion); State v. McMillian, 349 S.C. 17, 21, 561 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2002) (holding reversals of refusals of continuances are about as rare as the proverbial hens’ teeth). AFFIRMED. [1] HUFF, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.