## Facts

- Mother and Father had three children: an older daughter and infant twins (a daughter and a son).
- When the twin daughter was about six months old, she suffered serious brain injuries while allegedly in Father’s care; Mother delayed seeking treatment for roughly two days.
- Medical providers diagnosed nonaccidental subdural hematomas consistent with physical abuse, and the hospital report triggered state intervention.
- Law enforcement and the county social services agency removed all three children under emergency protective procedures; the family court later approved a placement plan requiring Mother to maintain employment, pay support, and attend supervised visitation.
- Mother separated from Father, obtained a divorce, and secured a restraining order against him.
- The agency returned the older daughter to Mother and later returned the twin daughter to Mother for a period; the twin son remained in foster care.
- The twins were placed in separate foster homes, each with different foster parents, who provided strong care; the twins had ongoing special needs, particularly the twin daughter.
- Over time, Mother maintained contact, complied with agency requirements, and progressed toward reunification, including increased caregiving during visits without major incident.
- As reunification approached, the foster parents filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights (TPR) and to adopt the respective child.
- The family court terminated Mother’s parental rights and granted the adoptions, relying on multiple statutory grounds (including the children being in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months) and ordered Mother to pay a share of the guardian ad litem (GAL) and GAL-counsel fees.

## Issues

1. Whether any statutory ground for terminating Mother’s parental rights was proven by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Whether termination was in the twins’ best interests.
3. Whether the foster parents’ adoption petitions could be granted given the statutory and best-interests requirements for TPR.
4. Whether the family court erred in denying Mother’s mistrial motion.
5. Whether the family court properly ordered Mother to pay a portion of the GAL and GAL-attorney fees.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the termination of Mother’s parental rights and reversed the adoptions.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.
- The court held that the asserted statutory grounds for termination were not established by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court concluded that, on this record, termination was not shown to be in the twins’ best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires (1) proof of at least one statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence and (2) a separate finding that termination serves the child’s best interests.
- The “15 of 22 months” foster-care provision is not automatic; courts must consider whether time in care resulted from agency or court delay rather than parental noncompliance.
- Past conditions (including prior abuse in the home or a resolved mental-health episode) do not, without current evidence of unfitness or danger, satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard for TPR.
- Best-interests analysis in TPR may not rest on a comparison that a foster or adoptive home offers superior resources or stability; absent a proven statutory ground, a fit parent’s rights may not be severed.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the family court’s termination and adoption orders because the record did not clearly and convincingly establish any statutory basis to permanently sever Mother’s rights, and the foster-care time period could not be used to justify termination where delays were largely attributable to the state rather than to Mother’s failure to reunify.


Loe v. Mother, Father, & Berkeley Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 382 S.C. 457, 675 S.E.2d 807 (Ct. App. 2009)