Monday, June 19, 2006
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
In South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent, v. Angelica Seegars, John Doe, and L.J. Parker, Defendants,* the Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld the termination of the parental rights of the mother on the basis that she willfully failed to support the children for a period in excess of six months and on the further basis that she had a diagnosable condition that is unlikely to change within a reasonable time and made it unlikely that she could provide minimally acceptable care for the children.
We do not understand how the Court could find that the mother's failure to provide for her children was willful when the psychiatrist who examined her testified that her (untreatable) mental condition rendered her "unable to take care of herself never mind her children." This seems to be an internallly inconsistent ruling and calls for a serious re-examination and re-evaluation of the concept of "willful." Before the Courts either jail people for contempt or take away their children forever based on willful misconduct, extra precaution should be exercised to make sure the misconduct was in fact purposeful.
*http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/displayOpinionPF.cfm?caseNo=26119
In South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent, v. Angelica Seegars, John Doe, and L.J. Parker, Defendants,* the Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld the termination of the parental rights of the mother on the basis that she willfully failed to support the children for a period in excess of six months and on the further basis that she had a diagnosable condition that is unlikely to change within a reasonable time and made it unlikely that she could provide minimally acceptable care for the children.
We do not understand how the Court could find that the mother's failure to provide for her children was willful when the psychiatrist who examined her testified that her (untreatable) mental condition rendered her "unable to take care of herself never mind her children." This seems to be an internallly inconsistent ruling and calls for a serious re-examination and re-evaluation of the concept of "willful." Before the Courts either jail people for contempt or take away their children forever based on willful misconduct, extra precaution should be exercised to make sure the misconduct was in fact purposeful.
*http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/displayOpinionPF.cfm?caseNo=26119
