Father motion in South Carolina

2025See id. at 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d at 486 n.2 (explaining appellate courts review the family court's procedural and evidentiary rulings for an abuse of the family court's discretion).

2025See id. at 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d at 486 n.2 (explaining appellate courts review the family court's procedural and evidentiary rulings for an abuse of the family court's discretion).

2023See Sloan v. Greenville Cnty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An appellate court will not pass judgment on moot and academic questions; it will not adjudicate a matter when no actual controversy capable of specific relief exists."); see also Klein v. Barrett, 427 S.C. 74, 90 , 828 S.E.2d 773, 781 (Ct. App. 2019) (finding an argument about clerical or typographical errors in the family court's child support calculation was moot because the family court subsequently "corrected and clarified its calculation").

2023See Sloan v. Greenville Cnty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An appellate court will not pass judgment on moot and academic questions; it will not adjudicate a matter when no actual controversy capable of specific relief exists."); see also Klein v. Barrett, 427 S.C. 74, 90 , 828 S.E.2d 773, 781 (Ct. App. 2019) (finding an argument about clerical or typographical errors in the family court's child support calculation was moot because the family court subsequently "corrected and clarified its calculation").

2023See Sloan v. Greenville Cnty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An appellate court will not pass judgment on moot and academic questions; it will not adjudicate a matter when no actual controversy capable of specific relief exists."); see also Klein v. Barrett, 427 S.C. 74, 90 , 828 S.E.2d 773, 781 (Ct. App. 2019) (finding an argument about clerical or typographical errors in the family court's child support calculation was moot because the family court subsequently "corrected and clarified its calculation").

2023See Sloan v. Greenville Cnty., 380 S.C. 528, 535 , 670 S.E.2d 663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An appellate court will not pass judgment on moot and academic questions; it will not adjudicate a matter when no actual controversy capable of specific relief exists."); see also Klein v. Barrett, 427 S.C. 74, 90 , 828 S.E.2d 773, 781 (Ct. App. 2019) (finding an argument about clerical or typographical errors in the family court's child support calculation was moot because the family court subsequently "corrected and clarified its calculation").

2023See Weller v. Weller, 434 S.C. 530 , 538, 863 S.E.2d 835 , 839 (Ct. App. 2021) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the family court's decision is controlled by some error of law or whe[n] the order, based upon findings of fact, is without evidentiary support." (alteration in original) (quoting Gartside v. Gartside, 383 S.C. 35, 42 , 677 S.E.2d 621, 625 (Ct. App. 2009))); see also Rule 14(d), SCFCR ("The rule to show cause, and the supporting affidavit or verified petition, shall be served, in the manner prescribed herein, not later than ten days before the date specified for the hearing, unle

2023See Weller v. Weller, 434 S.C. 530 , 538, 863 S.E.2d 835 , 839 (Ct. App. 2021) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the family court's decision is controlled by some error of law or whe[n] the order, based upon findings of fact, is without evidentiary support." (alteration in original) (quoting Gartside v. Gartside, 383 S.C. 35, 42 , 677 S.E.2d 621, 625 (Ct. App. 2009))); see also Rule 14(d), SCFCR ("The rule to show cause, and the supporting affidavit or verified petition, shall be served, in the manner prescribed herein, not later than ten days before the date specified for the hearing, unle

2023See Stone v. Thompson, 428 S.C. 79 , 91, 833 S.E.2d 266 , 272 (2019) ("Appellate courts review family court matters de novo, with the exceptions of evidentiary and procedural rulings."); Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 524 , 599 S.E.2d 114, 118 (2004) ("Under South Carolina law, if there is no evidence of judicial prejudice, a judge's failure to disqualify himself will not be reversed on appeal."); id. ("It is not sufficient for a party seeking disqualification to simply allege bias; the party must show some evidence of bias or prejudice.").

2023See Stone v. Thompson, 428 S.C. 79 , 91, 833 S.E.2d 266 , 272 (2019) ("Appellate courts review family court matters de novo, with the exceptions of evidentiary and procedural rulings."); Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 524 , 599 S.E.2d 114, 118 (2004) ("Under South Carolina law, if there is no evidence of judicial prejudice, a judge's failure to disqualify himself will not be reversed on appeal."); id. ("It is not sufficient for a party seeking disqualification to simply allege bias; the party must show some evidence of bias or prejudice.").

2023See Sellers v. Nicholls, 432 S.C. 101 , 114, 851 S.E.2d 54 , 60-61 (Ct. App. 2020) ("[W]e will not set aside a judge's ruling on a motion for a continuance unless it clearly appears there was an abuse of discretion to the prejudice of the movant." (emphasis omitted) (quoting Townsend v. Townsend, 323 S.C. 309, 313 , 474 S.E.2d 424, 427 (1996))).

2023See Sellers v. Nicholls, 432 S.C. 101 , 114, 851 S.E.2d 54 , 60-61 (Ct. App. 2020) ("[W]e will not set aside a judge's ruling on a motion for a continuance unless it clearly appears there was an abuse of discretion to the prejudice of the movant." (emphasis omitted) (quoting Townsend v. Townsend, 323 S.C. 309, 313 , 474 S.E.2d 424, 427 (1996))).

2022See Stoney v. Stoney, 425 S.C. 47, 62 , 819 S.E.2d 201, 209 (Ct. App. 2018) (explaining appellate courts will review "a family court's evidentiary or procedural rulings . . . using an abuse of discretion standard" (quoting Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 595 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 487 n. 2 (2018))); Rule 14(c), SCRFC ("No rule to show cause shall be issued unless based upon and supported by an affidavit or verified petition . . . .

2022See Stoney v. Stoney, 425 S.C. 47, 62 , 819 S.E.2d 201, 209 (Ct. App. 2018) (explaining appellate courts will review "a family court's evidentiary or procedural rulings . . . using an abuse of discretion standard" (quoting Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 595 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 487 n. 2 (2018))); Rule 14(c), SCRFC ("No rule to show cause shall be issued unless based upon and supported by an affidavit or verified petition . . . .

2022See Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 201 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a defendant may move to dismiss based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."); id. ("A [family court] in the civil setting may dismiss a claim when the defendant demonstrates the plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in the pleadings filed with the court."); id. at 202 , 584 S.E.2d at 415 ("In deciding whether the [family] court properly granted the motion to dismiss, [an appellate court] must consider whether

2022See Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 201 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a defendant may move to dismiss based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."); id. ("A [family court] in the civil setting may dismiss a claim when the defendant demonstrates the plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in the pleadings filed with the court."); id. at 202 , 584 S.E.2d at 415 ("In deciding whether the [family] court properly granted the motion to dismiss, [an appellate court] must consider whether

2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 486 n.2 (2018) (stating an appellate court reviews the family court's procedural rulings under an abuse of discretion standard); Wagner v. United States, 377 F.Supp.2d 505, 510-11 (D.S.C. 2005) (acknowledging a plaintiff "had no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. §[] 241 . . . because [it is a] criminal statute[]").

2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 486 n.2 (2018) (providing that this court reviews the family court's procedural rulings for an abuse of discretion); State v. Wiley, 387 S.C. 490, 495 , 692 S.E.2d 560, 563 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial.").

2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 486 n.2 (2018) (providing that this court reviews the family court's procedural rulings for an abuse of discretion); State v. Wiley, 387 S.C. 490, 495 , 692 S.E.2d 560, 563 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial.").

2017See Kelley v. Kelley, 324 S.C. 481, 486 , 477 S.E.2d 727, 729-30 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The following circumstances, without more, have been found insufficient to warrant modification of alimony: unwarranted debts, inflation, increased or decreased income of the payor spouse, a payee spouse's anticipated employment, and the 'straitened financial situation[s]' which are a normal consequence of divorce." (quoting Kielar v. Kielar, 311 S.C. 466, 470 , 429 S.E.2d 851, 853 (Ct. App. 1993)); cf. Kielar, 311 S.C. at 469-70 , 429 S.E.2d at 853-54 (concluding Father's involuntary resignation resulting in a

2017See Kelley v. Kelley, 324 S.C. 481, 486 , 477 S.E.2d 727, 729-30 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The following circumstances, without more, have been found insufficient to warrant modification of alimony: unwarranted debts, inflation, increased or decreased income of the payor spouse, a payee spouse's anticipated employment, and the 'straitened financial situation[s]' which are a normal consequence of divorce." (quoting Kielar v. Kielar, 311 S.C. 466, 470 , 429 S.E.2d 851, 853 (Ct. App. 1993)); cf. Kielar, 311 S.C. at 469-70 , 429 S.E.2d at 853-54 (concluding Father's involuntary resignation resulting in a

2017See Kelley v. Kelley, 324 S.C. 481, 486 , 477 S.E.2d 727, 729-30 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The following circumstances, without more, have been found insufficient to warrant modification of alimony: unwarranted debts, inflation, increased or decreased income of the payor spouse, a payee spouse's anticipated employment, and the 'straitened financial situation[s]' which are a normal consequence of divorce." (quoting Kielar v. Kielar, 311 S.C. 466, 470 , 429 S.E.2d 851, 853 (Ct. App. 1993)); cf. Kielar, 311 S.C. at 469-70 , 429 S.E.2d at 853-54 (concluding Father's involuntary resignation resulting in a

2017See Kelley v. Kelley, 324 S.C. 481, 486 , 477 S.E.2d 727, 729-30 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The following circumstances, without more, have been found insufficient to warrant modification of alimony: unwarranted debts, inflation, increased or decreased income of the payor spouse, a payee spouse's anticipated employment, and the 'straitened financial situation[s]' which are a normal consequence of divorce." (quoting Kielar v. Kielar, 311 S.C. 466, 470 , 429 S.E.2d 851, 853 (Ct. App. 1993)); cf. Kielar, 311 S.C. at 469-70 , 429 S.E.2d at 853-54 (concluding Father's involuntary resignation resulting in a

2015See Schultze v. Schultze, 403 S.C. 1, 8 , 741 S.E.2d 593, 597 (Ct. App. 2013) ("[T]he appellant bears the burden of providing a record on appeal sufficient for intelligent review and from which an appellate court can determine whether the [family] court erred."); id. ("For this court to evaluate the merits of a disputed issue, the appellant must provide the court with a sufficient record pertaining to that issue; otherwise, there is nothing for this court to review."). 3.

2015See Schultze v. Schultze, 403 S.C. 1, 8 , 741 S.E.2d 593, 597 (Ct. App. 2013) ("[T]he appellant bears the burden of providing a record on appeal sufficient for intelligent review and from which an appellate court can determine whether the [family] court erred."); id. ("For this court to evaluate the merits of a disputed issue, the appellant must provide the court with a sufficient record pertaining to that issue; otherwise, there is nothing for this court to review."). 3.

2013Rivas v. Rivas, 342 S.C. 102, 107 , 536 S.E.2d 372, 374 (2000). "'[W]here the rights and best interests of a minor child are concerned, the court may appropriately raise, ex mero motu, issues not raised by the parties.'" Id. (quoting Ex parte Roper, 254 S.C. 558 , 563, 176 S.E.2d 175, 177 (1970)).

2013Rivas v. Rivas, 342 S.C. 102, 107 , 536 S.E.2d 372, 374 (2000). "'[W]here the rights and best interests of a minor child are concerned, the court may appropriately raise, ex mero motu, issues not raised by the parties.'" Id. (quoting Ex parte Roper, 254 S.C. 558 , 563, 176 S.E.2d 175, 177 (1970)).

2013Rivas v. Rivas, 342 S.C. 102, 107 , 536 S.E.2d 372, 374 (2000). "'[W]here the rights and best interests of a minor child are concerned, the court may appropriately raise, ex mero motu, issues not raised by the parties.'" Id. (quoting Ex parte Roper, 254 S.C. 558 , 563, 176 S.E.2d 175, 177 (1970)).

2013Rivas v. Rivas, 342 S.C. 102, 107 , 536 S.E.2d 372, 374 (2000). "'[W]here the rights and best interests of a minor child are concerned, the court may appropriately raise, ex mero motu, issues not raised by the parties.'" Id. (quoting Ex parte Roper, 254 S.C. 558 , 563, 176 S.E.2d 175, 177 (1970)).

2011Co. , 348 S.C. 76, 81 , 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) ("[S]hort, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review.") At any rate, the family court declined to make this change as requested in Father's motion to amend.

2011Co. , 348 S.C. 76, 81 , 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) ("[S]hort, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review.") At any rate, the family court declined to make this change as requested in Father's motion to amend.

2011See Bryson v. Bryson , 378 S.C. 502, 510 , 662 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority."); see also Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.

2011See Bryson v. Bryson , 378 S.C. 502, 510 , 662 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority."); see also Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.

2009Therefore, the family court properly denied Father’s motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence. 9 See State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166 , 672 S.E.2d 556, 565 (2009) (noting our jurisprudence recognizes the gatekeeping role of the trial court in determining the credibility of post-trial motions); State v. Pierce, 263 S.C. 23, 33 , 207 S.E.2d 414, 419 (1974) (“The credibility of newly-discovered evidence offered in support of a motion for new trial is a matter for determination by the circuit judge to whom it is offered.”).

2009Therefore, the family court properly denied Father’s motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence. 9 See State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166 , 672 S.E.2d 556, 565 (2009) (noting our jurisprudence recognizes the gatekeeping role of the trial court in determining the credibility of post-trial motions); State v. Pierce, 263 S.C. 23, 33 , 207 S.E.2d 414, 419 (1974) (“The credibility of newly-discovered evidence offered in support of a motion for new trial is a matter for determination by the circuit judge to whom it is offered.”).

2009See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (recognizing an appellate court need not address additional issues if the resolution of another issue is dispositive).

2009See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (recognizing an appellate court need not address additional issues if the resolution of another issue is dispositive).

2009Therefore, the family court properly denied Father’s motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence. 9 See State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166 , 672 S.E.2d 556, 565 (2009) (noting our jurisprudence recognizes the gatekeeping role of the trial court in determining the credibility of post-trial motions); State v. Pierce, 263 S.C. 23, 33 , 207 S.E.2d 414, 419 (1974) (“The credibility of newly-discovered evidence offered in support of a motion for new trial is a matter for determination by the circuit judge to whom it is offered.”).

2009Therefore, the family court properly denied Father’s motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence. 9 See State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 166 , 672 S.E.2d 556, 565 (2009) (noting our jurisprudence recognizes the gatekeeping role of the trial court in determining the credibility of post-trial motions); State v. Pierce, 263 S.C. 23, 33 , 207 S.E.2d 414, 419 (1974) (“The credibility of newly-discovered evidence offered in support of a motion for new trial is a matter for determination by the circuit judge to whom it is offered.”).

2009STANDARD OF REVIEW “In appeals from the family court, this court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.” Nasser-Moghaddassi v. Moghaddassi, 364 S.C. 182, 189 , 612 S.E.2d 707, 711 (Ct.App.2005) (citing Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 213 , 603 S.E.2d 598, 601 (Ct.App.2004)).

2009STANDARD OF REVIEW “In appeals from the family court, this court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.” Nasser-Moghaddassi v. Moghaddassi, 364 S.C. 182, 189 , 612 S.E.2d 707, 711 (Ct.App.2005) (citing Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 213 , 603 S.E.2d 598, 601 (Ct.App.2004)).

2009STANDARD OF REVIEW “In appeals from the family court, this court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.” Nasser-Moghaddassi v. Moghaddassi, 364 S.C. 182, 189 , 612 S.E.2d 707, 711 (Ct.App.2005) (citing Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 213 , 603 S.E.2d 598, 601 (Ct.App.2004)).

2009STANDARD OF REVIEW “In appeals from the family court, this court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.” Nasser-Moghaddassi v. Moghaddassi, 364 S.C. 182, 189 , 612 S.E.2d 707, 711 (Ct.App.2005) (citing Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 213 , 603 S.E.2d 598, 601 (Ct.App.2004)).