Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-077 - SCDSS v. Sonya G.

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

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Respondent, Defendants,

Of whom Sonya G. is the, Appellant.

In the interest of a minor under the age of 18.


Appeal from Kershaw County
Dana A. Morris, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-077
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 8, 2012   


AFFIRMED


Thomas M. Neal, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Princess Faith Henryhand Hodges, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Zack Owen Atkinson, of Camden, for Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Sonya G. (Mother) appeals an order of the family court requiring her to submit to psychological and physical examinations, arguing the family court did not have jurisdiction or authority to order her to submit to these evaluations prior to a finding of abuse or neglect.  We affirm.[1]  This is an issue of the family court's authority, not its jurisdiction.[2]  The family court has exclusive original jurisdiction over abuse and removal proceedings.  S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1610(A) (2010).  Although Mother's brief argues the family court's ruling was made over her objections, no objection or post-trial motion appears in the record.  Because the record does not show that Mother raised this issue to the family court, we find this issue unpreserved.  Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); see also Medlock v. One 1985 Jeep Cherokee VIN 1JCWB7828FT129001, 322 S.C. 127, 132, 470 S.E.2d 373, 376 (1996) ("The appellant has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record upon which to make a decision."). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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

[2] We further note that the child at issue reached the age of majority during the pendency of this appeal and any further proceedings may be moot.