In 3-2 decision, South Carolina Supreme Court orders immediate adoption in Indian Adoption case

July 17, 2013

In a 3-2 decision today [July 17, 2013] in the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 404 S.C. 483, 746 S.E.2d 51 (2013), the South

United States Supreme Court reverses on South Carolina Indian Adoption case

June 25, 2013

In a highly anticipated case that generated much local notoriety, and in which some of my friends and colleagues participated, the United States Supreme Court

Supreme Court finds harmless error in denial of counsel for termination of parental rights

May 10, 2013

The May 8, 2013 Supreme Court opinion in Broom v. Jennifer, 403 S.C. 96, 742 S.E.2d 382 (2013), affirmed a termination of parental rights (TPR) despite the appellant

Court of Appeals reverses termination of parental rights as not in child’s best interests

May 3, 2013

The May 3, 2013 Court of Appeals opinion in SCDSS v. Cameron N. F. L., 403 S.C. 323, 742 S.E.2d 697 (Ct.App 2013), (dig those initials) reversed the

Divided Supreme Court reinstates termination of parental rights

March 21, 2013

In the March 20, 2013 opinion in SCDSS v. Sarah W., 402 S.C. 324, 741 S.E.2d 739 (2013), a divided South Carolina Supreme Court reinstated a

Supreme Court applies Federal Indian Child Welfare Act to prevent adoption

July 27, 2012

The July 26, 2012 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Adoptive Couple v. Cherokee Nation, 398 S.C. 625, 731 S.E.2d 550 (2012), had been long anticipated.  The story

Court of Appeals holds that multi-state child custody jurisdiction statutes are applicable to termination of parental rights/adoption cases

March 16, 2012

In the March 16, 2012 opinion in Anthony H. v. Matthew G.,397 S.C. 447, 725 S.E.2d 132 (Ct. App. 2012) the Court of Appeals held

Court of Appeals reverses permanency plan of termination of parental rights where Mother remedied conditions that led to removal

December 23, 2011

In the December 16, 2011 opinion in SCDSS v. Mother and Father, 396 S.C. 390, 720 S.E.2d 920 (Ct. App. 2011), the Court of Appeals reversed a

Share

Subscribe

Archives