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
Kevin H. Bragg, Appellant,
Morgan C. Bragg, Respondent.
Appeal From Laurens County
Joseph W. McGowan, III, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-426
Heard September 13, 2011 – Filed September 21, 2011
H. Michael Spivey, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Matthew P. Turner, of Laurens, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Kevin Bragg appeals the family court's order declining to grant him custody of his child. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Davis v. Davis, 356 S.C. 132, 135, 588 S.E.2d 102, 103-04 (2003) (stating the controlling considerations in child custody cases are the welfare of the children and what is in their best interest); Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 11, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996) (providing that in making its determination on custody, the family court should consider the character, fitness, attitude, and inclinations on the part of each parent as they impact the children, as well as the psychological, physical, environmental, spiritual, educational, medical, family, emotional and recreational aspects of the children's lives); id. ("[A]ll the conflicting rules and presumptions should be weighed together with all of the circumstances of the particular case, and all relevant factors must be taken into consideration."); Latimer v. Farmer, 360 S.C. 375, 381, 602 S.E.2d 32, 35 (2004) ("Because the best interest of the child is the overriding concern in all child custody matters, when a non-custodial parent seeks a change in custody, the non-custodial parent must establish the following: (1) there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child and (2) a change in custody is in the overall best interests of the child."); id. ("The change of circumstances relied on for a change of custody must be such as would substantially affect the interest and welfare of the child."); id. (holding the parent seeking a change of custody bears the burden of establishing both of the criteria); Chastain v. Chastain, 381 S.C. 295, 302, 672 S.E.2d 108, 111 (Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 10, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996)) (declaring that although our review is de novo, "an appellate court 'should be reluctant to substitute its own evaluation of the evidence on child custody for that of the [family] court.'").
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.