inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry in South Carolina

2025"The controlling considerations in all child custody controversies are the child's welfare and best interest." Daily v. Daily, 432 S.C. 608 , 618, 854 S.E.2d 856 , 862 (Ct. App. 2021). "[A] determination of the best interest of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting McComb v. Conard, 394 S.C. 416, 423 , 715 S.E.2d 662, 665 (Ct. App. 2011)).

2025"The controlling considerations in all child custody controversies are the child's welfare and best interest." Daily v. Daily, 432 S.C. 608 , 618, 854 S.E.2d 856 , 862 (Ct. App. 2021). "[A] determination of the best interest of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting McComb v. Conard, 394 S.C. 416, 423 , 715 S.E.2d 662, 665 (Ct. App. 2011)).

2026See Rice v. Rice, 335 S.C. 449, 458 , 517 S.E.2d 220 , 225 (Ct. App. 1999) (finding the "determination of the best interest[s] of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry").

2026See Rice v. Rice, 335 S.C. 449, 458 , 517 S.E.2d 220 , 225 (Ct. App. 1999) (finding the "determination of the best interest[s] of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry").

2018Those issues are still under consideration. interest[s] of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry."); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 (holding the de novo standard of review "does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial judge is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the trial judge"); Brown, 362 S.C. at 93-94 , 606 S.E.2d at 789

2018Those issues are still under consideration. interest[s] of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry."); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 (holding the de novo standard of review "does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial judge is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the trial judge"); Brown, 362 S.C. at 93-94 , 606 S.E.2d at 789

2018Those issues are still under consideration. interest[s] of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry."); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 (holding the de novo standard of review "does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial judge is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the trial judge"); Brown, 362 S.C. at 93-94 , 606 S.E.2d at 789

2018Those issues are still under consideration. interest[s] of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry."); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 (holding the de novo standard of review "does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial judge is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the trial judge"); Brown, 362 S.C. at 93-94 , 606 S.E.2d at 789

2018Those issues are still under consideration. interest[s] of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry."); Stoney, 422 S.C. at 595, 813 S.E.2d at 487 (holding the de novo standard of review "does not abrogate two long-standing principles still recognized by our courts during the de novo review process: (1) a trial judge is in a superior position to assess witness credibility, and (2) an appellant has the burden of showing the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding of the trial judge"); Brown, 362 S.C. at 93-94 , 606 S.E.2d at 789

2018As to whether the family court erred in refusing to review Child's diary: Stoney, 422 S.C. at 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d at 486 n.2 (acknowledging our appellate courts review the family court's "evidentiary or procedural rulings . . . using an abuse of discretion standard"); S.C.

2004We recognize that “a determination of the best interest of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry.” Rice , 335 S.C. at 458 , 517 S.E.2d at 225 ; see Davenport v. Davenport , 265 S.C. 524, 527 , 220 S.E.2d 228, 230 (1975) (In child custody cases, “the totality of circumstances peculiar to each case constitutes the only scale upon which the ultimate decision can be weighed.”).

2004We recognize that “a determination of the best interest of the children is an inherently case-specific and fact-specific inquiry.” Rice , 335 S.C. at 458 , 517 S.E.2d at 225 ; see Davenport v. Davenport , 265 S.C. 524, 527 , 220 S.E.2d 228, 230 (1975) (In child custody cases, “the totality of circumstances peculiar to each case constitutes the only scale upon which the ultimate decision can be weighed.”).

1999See Wheeler v. Gill, 307 S.C. 94, 99 , 413 S.E.2d 860, 863 (Ct.App.1992) (In child custody cases, “ ‘the totality of the circumstances peculiar to each case constitutes the only scale upon which the ultimate decision can be weighed.’ ”).

1999See Wheeler v. Gill, 307 S.C. 94, 99 , 413 S.E.2d 860, 863 (Ct.App.1992) (In child custody cases, “ ‘the totality of the circumstances peculiar to each case constitutes the only scale upon which the ultimate decision can be weighed.’ ”).