Background
In April 2023, SCDSS removed two-year-old Child from the home of her father, Mackenzie Pace, due to unsafe home conditions. The Pickens County Family Court entered a placement plan requiring Pace to, among other things, maintain safe and stable housing with a suitable sleeping space for Child, demonstrate appropriate behavior and boundaries to avoid exposing Child to anything of a sexual nature, and complete a psychosexual assessment and follow its recommendations. The last requirement arose from a 2019 incident involving Pace and Child’s then-six-year-old half-sister (Sibling)—an incident that resulted in a criminal conviction for Pace.
Nearly two years after Child entered foster care, the TPR hearing revealed that Pace was still living in his parents’ home, which he admitted lacked adequate space for Child. He was simultaneously building a 200-square-foot tiny home on his parents’ property, consisting of one bathroom and one combined living, eating, and sleeping area, but the structure still required floor insulation and additional interior walls. Pace himself acknowledged the tiny home was not a long-term living solution for Child. More significantly, despite completing the psychosexual evaluation and attending individual counseling, Pace testified repeatedly at the hearing that he did not understand the impact his 2019 actions had on Sibling. SCDSS moved to terminate parental rights on three statutory grounds, including failure to remedy the conditions that caused Child’s removal. The family court granted TPR and found it was in Child’s best interest. Pace appealed.
The Court’s Holding
Failure to remedy conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed per curiam under Rule 220(b), SCACR. Applying de novo review but deferring to the family court on credibility, the court held there was no error in granting TPR on the statutory ground of failure to remedy conditions under S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570(2). That statute authorizes TPR when a child has been removed pursuant to a court-ordered placement plan, has been out of the home for at least six months, and the parent has not remedied the conditions that caused removal. The court found that even if the tiny home had been complete at the time of the hearing, it would still not have constituted safe and suitable housing given Pace’s ongoing failure to understand or acknowledge the impact of his prior conduct on a child of comparable age to Child. The physical adequacy of the structure could not be assessed in isolation from the safety risk that Pace’s unresolved issues posed. Because this ground was established by clear and convincing evidence, the court declined to address the other two grounds raised by SCDSS. See SCDSS v. Headden, 354 S.C. 602, 613 (2003).
Best interest. The court also affirmed the best-interest determination. Child had made significant developmental progress in foster care—learning to walk without leg braces and to speak in nearly full sentences through physical, occupational, and speech therapies. Child was being seen by medical specialists for ear and hip conditions and had been diagnosed with developmental delays. She had lived in the same pre-adoptive foster home as her older half-brother since April 2023 and had developed a strong bond with her foster mother and the other children in the home. Although Pace maintained consistent visitation and the caseworker kept him informed of Child’s progress, he could not identify when Child attended her various medical appointments. The guardian ad litem also supported TPR. The court held that, given the totality of circumstances, Child’s best interest weighed in favor of termination.
Key Takeaways
- Under S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570(2), housing adequacy is assessed together with all placement plan requirements, including safety obligations arising from a parent’s prior criminal conduct; an incomplete or physically small dwelling that cannot safely accommodate a child can satisfy the “failure to remedy” ground even where the parent made some constructive effort.
- A parent who completes a psychosexual evaluation and counseling but still cannot articulate the impact of prior harmful conduct on a child has not meaningfully remedied the safety-related conditions of a court-ordered placement plan.
- Consistent visitation, while a positive factor in a best-interest analysis, does not override unmet plan obligations when a pre-adoptive placement is providing stability, therapeutic services, and a sibling bond.
- Once an appellate court finds one statutory TPR ground supported by clear and convincing evidence, it need not address the remaining grounds. See SCDSS v. Headden, 354 S.C. 602, 613 (2003).
Why It Matters
Though unpublished and without precedential value under Rule 268(d)(2), SCACR, SCDSS v. Pace illustrates how South Carolina courts evaluate the “failure to remedy conditions” ground when a placement plan encompasses both housing and behavioral or safety requirements. The court’s analysis makes clear that a parent cannot satisfy the plan by addressing only one dimension: securing a dwelling that might be adequate on paper carries little weight if the parent has not demonstrated genuine insight into the conduct that prompted the safety-related requirements in the first place. For attorneys representing parents in DSS cases, the decision reinforces the importance of obtaining and documenting meaningful behavioral progress early, not waiting until the eve of a TPR hearing to address the most sensitive plan obligations.
The case also highlights the cumulative weight courts assign to pre-adoptive stability when assessing a child’s best interest. Child’s therapeutic gains, sibling placement, and bond with her foster family all pointed in the same direction. South Carolina family law practitioners should advise clients that the longer a child remains in a stable, therapeutically supportive pre-adoptive placement, the harder it becomes to contest best-interest findings regardless of visitation compliance.