Background
The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed an order terminating David Steele’s parental rights to his ten-year-old twins. The unpublished decision applies South Carolina’s 15-of-22-month foster-care ground: a family court may terminate parental rights when a child has spent at least fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months in foster care, but elapsed time alone is not enough. The evidence must also show the reunification delay resulted from the parent’s inability to provide a safe, nourishing environment rather than government mistakes or outside forces.
The twins entered foster care in March 2023 because of the physical condition of the family home and concerns about domestic violence and substance abuse in their presence. By the July 2025 termination hearing, they had been in care for about twenty-seven months. Steele’s placement plan required stable housing and employment, services through the Midlands Fatherhood Coalition, and random drug screening within seventy-two hours of a request. He completed the fatherhood course, but his employment remained sporadic, the Department of Social Services caseworker and guardian ad litem continued to question the home’s condition, and he missed requested drug tests. He submitted to no hair-follicle screen despite repeated requests and gave differing explanations for why he could not do so.
Steele argued transportation problems prevented compliance. The caseworker testified, however, that the parents had a seven-day window to test and did not respond to her offer of transportation. On appeal, Steele challenged both the statutory ground and the finding that termination served the children’s best interests. The Court of Appeals reviewed the family-court record de novo, while recognizing the trial judge’s superior ability to assess witness credibility and Steele’s burden to demonstrate error.
The Court’s Holding
The court held clear and convincing evidence established the 15-of-22-month ground. The twins’ twenty-seven months in foster care satisfied the timing component. More importantly, the court attributed the continued separation to Steele’s inability to supply a safe and stable home. His sporadic employment, unresolved concerns over the residence, missed drug screens, refusal or failure to complete any requested hair-follicle testing, and failure to accept offered transportation distinguished this record from cases in which agency delays or other outside obstacles caused a child to remain in care.
The panel also affirmed the best-interest determination. Both children had post-traumatic stress disorder and received counseling for behavioral issues. Although the parents regularly visited one twin, the other stopped attending visits in October 2024 after severe reactions. Her therapist considered further visits contrary to her interests, and the guardian ad litem described stress responses that included urination and vomiting. The therapist observed improvement after visits stopped.
Each twin lived in a separate foster home because of behavioral needs, and both foster families wanted to adopt. One child was open to adoption; the other had consistently asked to be adopted since the guardian ad litem’s appointment in November 2023. Weighing those facts from the children’s perspective—as South Carolina’s termination statutes require—the court concluded their need for permanency and the realistic prospect of adoption supported termination. It also rejected an unpreserved argument that the family court needed additional findings because Steele had not raised the asserted deficiency through a post-trial motion.
Key Takeaways
- Fifteen months in foster care does not automatically authorize termination; the record must connect reunification delay to parental inability rather than government error or outside forces.
- Missed drug screens can carry substantial weight when the agency provided a reasonable testing window and offered transportation that the parent did not accept.
- The best-interest inquiry centers on the children’s needs, responses to visitation, prospects for adoption, and need for permanency—not solely the parent’s progress on selected placement-plan tasks.
- A challenge to inadequate family-court findings generally must be preserved with an appropriate motion to alter or amend the order.
Why It Matters
For South Carolina termination cases, the opinion illustrates the evidence needed to move the 15-of-22-month provision beyond a calendar calculation. DSS should document testing requests, transportation offers, housing observations, and the reasons reunification did not occur. Parents’ counsel, in turn, should build a contemporaneous record tying delays to agency conduct or circumstances beyond the parent’s control when that is the defense.
The decision also shows how therapeutic evidence and a child’s reaction to visitation can shape the best-interest analysis. Practitioners should develop testimony not only about placement-plan compliance but also about each child’s clinical needs, permanency preferences, placement stability, and adoption prospects. Because the court treated the adequacy-of-findings issue as unpreserved, counsel should promptly seek additional findings in family court rather than waiting to raise that omission on appeal.