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
Michael David Coffey, Appellant,
Lisa A. Webb a/k/a Lisa Strid, Respondent.
Appeal From Greenville County
Honorable Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-024
Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2011
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled March 1, 2011
Michael D. Coffey, of Gray Court, pro se.
James D. Calmes, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Michael D. Coffey appeals the family court's denial of his motion to hold Lisa A. Webb in contempt. On appeal Coffey argues (1) the family court erred in finding he failed to meet his burden of proof, (2) the family court abused its discretion in considering the guardian ad litem's report and testimony, and (3) the family court abused its discretion by requiring visitation with his two minor children to resume through a therapist. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the family court erred by not finding Webb in contempt: Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal."); Harkins v. Greenville Cnty., 340 S.C. 606, 616, 533 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2000) (affirming the trial court on a particular issue because the appellants failed to meet their burden of presenting the necessary information in the record on appeal to decide that issue).
2. As to whether the family court abused its discretion in considering the guardian ad litem's report and testimony: High v. High, 389 S.C. 226, 239, 697 S.E.2d 690, 696 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding determinations regarding the relevance of evidence are within the family court's discretion and "[a] family court's ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence will only be reversed if it constitutes an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law").
3. As to whether the family court abused its discretion by requiring visitation with his two minor children to resume through a therapist: Nash v. Byrd, 298 S.C. 530, 536, 381 S.E.2d 913, 916 (Ct. App. 1989) ("The question of limiting visitation rights is a matter addressed to the broad discretion of the trial court. In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, the trial court's order limiting visitation rights will not be disturbed on appeal.") (citations omitted).
THOMAS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.