ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) pursuant to the Petitioners' motion for an order
authorizing a medical exam of a foster child. The underlying case giving rise to this Motion for Injunctive Relief is scheduled
to be tried before a Child Protective Services Appeals Committee pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-655 (Supp. 1998) on
December 20, 1999. A hearing concerning the Petitioners' Motion was held at the Division on December 9, 1999. After
hearing from the parties and reviewing the motion and the return to the motion, this Division dismisses the motion for the
reasons set forth below.
The Petitioners acknowledged that they have not filed a motion seeking the requested relief with the Appeals Examiner
(Hearing Officer) who will be presiding over this matter. The South Carolina Supreme Court stated in Hyde v. South
Carolina Department of Mental Health, 314 S.C. 207, 208, 442 S.E. 2d 582, 583 (1994), that "[t]he general rule is that
administrative remedies must be exhausted absent circumstances supporting an application of the general rule." The
Petitioners cannot seek outside review without first obtaining a ruling on this motion from the administrative tribunal that has
jurisdiction over this matter at this time. Therefore, the Petitioners failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to
them.
Additionally, even if the Petitioners exhausted their administrative remedies, the Division lacks jurisdiction to hear this
motion. The statute governing this controversy, S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-655 (G) (Supp. 1998), clearly vests appellate review
of this proceeding with Family Court, not the Administrative Law Judge Division. Part "G" of that statute sets forth, in
relevant part:
Proceedings for judicial review may be instituted by filing a petition in the family court within thirty days after the final
decision of the department. . . . Judicial review must be conducted by the family court in accordance with the standards of
review provided for in Section 1-23-380.
(Supp. 1998). Therefore, in these cases, Family Court is the court designated by the Legislature to address legal grievances
Petitioners may have with Hearing Officer decisions.
Based upon the above, this Division finds that the proper procedure is to direct this request for relief to the Appeals
Examiner (Hearing Officer). As the Division cannot rule on the motion due to the Petitioners' failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, as well as lack of appellate jurisdiction, the Petitioners' motion before the Division is dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
December 14, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina
Page 2 of 2 |
