Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-257 - Payne v. Patterson

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Martha Sue Payne, Respondent,

v.

Mary Patterson, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
 Wayne M. Creech, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-257
Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 26, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Kimaka  Nichols-Graham, of Greenville, for Appellant.

James  O'Connell, of Easley, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Mary Patterson appeals a family court order finding her in criminal contempt for violating a visitation order.  Patterson argues the family court abused its discretion when it sentenced Patterson to twenty-four hours' imprisonment for willfully interfering with Martha Sue Payne's visitation.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:    

1. As to whether the family court abused its discretion because the language of the order was vague and contradictory:  Charleston County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Jackson, 368 S.C. 87, 105, 627 S.E.2d 765, 775 (Ct. App. 2006) (noting to preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the family court).

2.  As to whether the family court abused its discretion because the violation was not willful:  King v. King, 384 S.C. 134, 140, 681 S.E.2d 609, 612 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Because the family court is in a superior position to judge the witnesses' demeanor and veracity, its findings should be given broad discretion.");  Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 457, 652 S.E.2d 754, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Intent for purposes of criminal contempt is subjective, not objective, and must necessarily be ascertained from all the acts, words, and circumstances surrounding the occurrence."). 

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, J., GEATHERS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.