SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter comes before the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") as the result of a request for a contested case hearing by James and Barbara Fordham ("the Fordhams"). The Fordhams seek review of the South Carolina Department of Social Services' ("Department) determination that two foster children placed in their care be removed from their home and awarding the adoption of the two minors to Ms. Johnnie Green. A hearing on the merits was held on October 4, 2000 at the Administrative Law Judge Division, 1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224, Columbia, South Carolina.

Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and the accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. The minors in this matter were placed into foster care in 1995 due to physical abuse and drug addiction of the biological mother. ⁽¹⁾

2. The parental rights of the biological mother were terminated on January 25, 1999.

3. The children were placed with Ms. Greene on May 22, 1996.

4. Ms. Greene relinquished custody of the minor children on February 23, 1999, citing problems with the children and her job.

5. Ms. Greene applied for the adoption in July 1999 and was approved in February 2000.

6. Both the Fordhams and Ms. Greene were qualified to come before the Placement Committee.

7. On June 12, 2000, the Placement Committee met and reviewed both families' files., and voted four to three in favor of Ms. Greene.

8. There is no dispute that the level of care provided by the Fordhams was excellent. ⁽²⁾

9. Ms. Greene's mother has custody of an older brother of the minor children..

Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:

1. The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction over this contested case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (B) (Supp. 1999).

2. The Administrative Law Judge Division does not sit as a substitute for the family court in this proceeding. Jurisdiction regarding adoption and custody matters is vested solely in the family court. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-736 (Supp. 1999). This tribunal is only concerned with whether the Department properly followed the procedural requirements in regard to the removal of the children from the Petitioners' home.

3. Foster care, by its very nature, is a temporary living arrangement while permanent placement plans are being formulated for the involved children. 27 S.C. Code Ann. Regs 114-550(1). Foster parents, therefore, have no right to permanent placement of foster care children in their home.

4. Because a foster parent has no inherent right to permanent placement of a foster child, and the best interest of the child is not the issue before this tribunal as this is not a custody dispute, the only matter to be resolved is whether the Department properly followed the procedural requirements in regard to removing the children.

5. Under the facts of this case, I find that the Department followed all requirements in removing the minor children from the Fordham's home and awarding adoption to Ms. Greene. I do not find that the Department acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or discriminately. ⁽³⁾

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is thereby

ORDERED that the Department's decision to remove the minor children from the Fordhams' custody and award adoption to Johnnie Greene is hereby SUSTAINED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge

November 28, 2000

Columbia, South Carolina

1. Due to the sensitive nature of this proceeding, the names of the minor children will not be used.

2. There is ample evidence in the record that the Fordhams provided excellent care to the two minor children. During the 16 months they cared for the minor children, they spent ample time involved in church activities, they became involved with the Fordham's extended family, they called the Fordhams "Mama" and "Daddy," and they even informed the caseworker that they wished to be adopted by the Fordhams.

3. This decision should not be interpreted as an opinion on the Fordhams' merit as foster parents or adoptive parents. This opinion merely indicates that the Department followed the applicable procedural requirements.