text:
In The Court of Appeals
Jane & John Doe, Respondents,
Richard Roe; Mary M.; John Roe (Whose true identity is unknown); and Baby Boy Jay, A Minor Under the Age Seven (7) Years, Defendants,
Of Whom Richard Roe is the Appellant.
Appeal From
James F. Fraley, Jr., Family Court Judge
Opinion No. 4119
Heard May 9, 2006 – Filed June 5, 2006
William G. Rhoden, of Gaffney, for Appellant.
James Fletcher Thompson, of
Spartanburg, for Respondents.
Susan A. Fretwell, of
Spartanburg, Guardian Ad Litem.
ANDERSON, J.: Richard Roe, the biological father of Baby Boy Jay, appeals (1) the family court's ruling that Roe's consent for adoption was not required under section 20-7-1690 of the South Carolina Code, and (2) the court's termination of Roe's parental rights. We affirm.
Melanie gave birth to Jay on January 19, 2005, and executed a consent for adoption form on January 20, 2005. Jane and John Doe initiated this action by filing for adoption of Jay on January 24, 2005. The Does have had custody of Jay since January 21, 2005.
Roe timely filed an answer and counter-claim seeking custody of Jay. DNA testing confirmed that Roe is Jay's biological father. The case was tried on May 9 and 11, 2005 and resulted in a ruling that Roe's consent was not required under South Carolina Code Annotated section 20-7-1690. In addition, the court terminated his parental rights.
Roe, who has been married to Martha Roe since April of 2000, separated from his wife in March of 2004 and moved in with Melanie. Within a few weeks, Roe returned to live with his wife. Shortly thereafter, Melanie discovered she was pregnant and informed Roe. On June 16, 2004, Melanie entered a drug rehabilitation center where she stayed until September 2, 2004. While she was in rehabilitation, Roe visited her and called her on the phone. The parties disagreed on the number of visits—Melanie estimated six visits, Roe recalled twelve or thirteen. By early August, the calls and visits suddenly stopped. Melanie averred:
A. In the beginning, he called a lot, but he just quit calling and quit coming, and I didn't know what happened to him. Q. Before you got out, recognizing you got out September 2nd, '04, how much before the time that you got out—how many days or weeks or months did he stop coming to visit or stop calling? A. About a month. Q. Had y'all had this falling out or something? A. No. He showed up with a card and a pack of cigarettes. And, the lady there told me—he didn't even see me, it was Wednesday; it was not visit day; Thursday was visit day. And, when I came back—I think I was in class or something, but when I came back to where we lived, she gave me the card and the cigarettes. Q. That was it? A. I never heard from him again until December.
During the time that Roe did visit, he gave Melanie some money, brought her cigarettes, and took her out for food on several occasions.
Q. . . . Was there anything that Roe ever brought you that helped you while you were in there. . . ? A. He got me some food. Q. Y'all went out to eat? You could check out a couple of times? A. On Thursday, he could go eat with me, if I remember. Q. And, I think you estimated on how many occasions during the time he came? A. We went to Subway twice and, on a Sunday, he brought me KFC once. Q. Subway twice; KFC once—twice; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And, Twenty Bucks? A. Yes. Q. Could it have been Thirty Bucks? A. It could have been Thirty Bucks. Q. Could it have been Fifty Bucks? A. No, it wasn't. Q. That was just one time, and it was in cash. A. Yes—well, no, he mainly gave me Ten and Twenty on different occasions, but it was not more than Fifty Dollars altogether.
Roe confessed, "I gave her very little money while she was in there," but estimated he gave her between fifty and one hundred dollars. He averred he brought her cigarettes and soda "just about every week."
Melanie left the rehabilitation center on September 2. After staying one night with a friend, and several nights with her brother, she returned to her mother's home in
Although Melanie avoided DSS, she declared she never attempted to evade Roe.
Q. Have you ever failed to answer the door for Roe? A. Roe never knocked on the door. We knew who was at the door all the time. Q. Did you ever hide from Roe? A. No, I did not.
Melanie's brother, Adam, and Adam's girlfriend, Carla, confirmed that Melanie never hid from Roe, but rather attempted to contact him. Adam testified as follows at trial:
Q. At any time when you were staying with your mom and with Melanie at Kendrick Street, were you aware of any steps that were made to try to hide Melanie from Roe? A. No, sir. Q. Are you aware of any steps that were taken from Melanie to find Roe? A. A few. Q. What were you aware of that was done? A. I was aware of her few phone calls that were made. Q. Did you ever make any phone calls? A. One or two.
Carla provided a similar account:
Q. Were you aware of any veil of secrecy or any kind of concerted effort that was made to hide the pregnancy from Roe? A. No. Q. Are you aware of any steps that were taken actually to locate Roe during this period of time? A. Yes. Q. What were you aware of? A. Melanie had used the phone a couple of times trying to call. She couldn't get through. Adam had called a couple of times and couldn't get through. They just couldn't find him.
However, the evidence does suggest that Roe hid from Melanie. Adam recounted a time in December when he had a chance encounter with Roe.
Q. What happened that day? A. Roe drove up the street. I was outside. He stopped to talk to me. Q. What did Roe say? A. He asked me if I knew where my sister was. Q. What did you say to him? A. I asked him where he was—where he had been, I'm sorry. Q. What was his response to that? A. He said he was trying to hide out.
Carla described an occasion when Roe stopped at the service station where Adam and Carla worked. She averred: ". . . I had asked at one point '[W]hat happened to you, Roe; you just disappeared?' And, he kind of looked down and said: 'That was my plan.'"
From December 3 until Jay was born Melanie stayed with her brother. Roe spoke with Melanie's brother and left a card and a pillow for her sometime in December. The card read, "21 More Day[s]," a statement apparently intended to mislead Melanie into believing Roe was soon to be divorced from his wife.
On January 3, 2005, Roe stopped by Adam's trailer to install a car battery. Melanie was there, and Roe stayed for approximately fifteen minutes. According to Roe, "she showed me a picture of the ultrasound and I told her I didn't really have time; I just wanted to make sure she was O. K." Melanie testified:
Q. At that time, did he stay a long time? Did he talk to you about the baby and your plans together? Did y'all sit down and –what happened? A. I was sitting on the couch; I showed him the ultrasound; he helped me with the battery in the car. Q. Did he leave you any money? A. No. Q. Did he come back after that January 3rd visit again before the baby was born? A. No, he did not. Q. Had you left the Evans Trailer Park? A. No, he told me that he would be back, and he never came back.
Melanie did not see Roe again until after she gave birth. On February 12, 2005, after learning of the suit for adoption by the Does, Roe purchased several items including blankets, pacifiers, and a diaper bag from Target.
The family court ruled that Roe was aware that Melanie was pregnant, knew of her location, and was informed that she was considering the option of adoption. According to the court, Roe "abdicated his responsibility to Melanie and to the unborn child." Therefore, the court found his consent to the adoption was not required and terminated his parental rights.
In appeals from the family court, this Court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Dearybury v. Dearybury, 351 S.C. 278, 569 S.E.2d 367 (2002); Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 612 S.E.2d 456 (Ct. App. 2005); Nasser-Moghaddassi v. Moghaddassi, 364 S.C. 182, 612 S.E.2d 707 (Ct. App. 2005); Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 603 S.E.2d 598 (Ct. App. 2004) (citing Rutherford v. Rutherford, 307 S.C. 199, 414 S.E.2d 157 (1992)). However, this broad scope of review does not require us to disregard the family court's findings. Holler v. Holler, 364 S.C. 256, 261, 612 S.E.2d 469, 472 (Ct. App. 2005). Bowers v. Bowers, 349 S.C. 85, 561 S.E.2d 610 (Ct. App. 2002); Badeaux v. Davis, 337 S.C. 195, 522 S.E.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1999). Nor must we ignore the fact that the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position to evaluate their credibility and assign comparative weight to their testimony. Lacke v. Lacke, 362 S.C. 302, 608 S.E.2d 147 (Ct. App. 2005); Murdock v. Murdock, 338 S.C. 322, 526 S.E.2d 241 (Ct. App. 1999); see also
I. An Unwed Father's Consent for Adoption
A. Section 20-7-1690
South Carolina Code Ann. section 20-7-1690 (Supp. 2005), provides, in pertinent part:
(A) Consent or relinquishment for the purpose of adoption is required of the following persons:
. . . .
(5) the father of a child born when the father was not married to the child's mother, if the child was placed with the prospective adoptive parents six months or less after the child's birth, but only if:
(a) the father openly lived with the child or the child's mother for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the placement of the child for adoption, and the father openly held himself out to be the father of the child during the six months period; or
(b) the father paid a fair and reasonable sum, based on the father's financial ability, for the support of the child or for expenses incurred in connection with the mother's pregnancy or with the birth of the child, including, but not limited to, medical, hospital, and nursing expenses.
S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1690 (Supp. 2005) (emphasis added). Roe did not provide a reasonable sum for the support of the child or for expenses incurred in connection with Melanie's pregnancy as outlined in the statute. However, under certain limited circumstances, our courts will excuse an unwed father for failure to meet the requirements of the statute.
B. Abernathy and Its Progeny
The seminal case of Abernathy v. Baby Boy, 313 S.C. 27, 437 S.E.2d 25 (1993), held that even though an unwed father fails to meet the literal requirements of section 20-7-1690, he may nonetheless be afforded constitutional protection when he undertakes sufficient prompt and good faith efforts to assume parental responsibility and to comply with the statute. The biological mother and father in Abernathy began a "casual sexual relationship" while both were on active duty in the Navy. 313 S.C. at 29, 437 S.E.2d at 27. Soon after Julie and Mitchell discovered Julie was pregnant, Mitchell was forced to leave for sea duty. He gave Julie use of his car and access to his bank account, and offered to send her to college while he stayed home to care for the child. Julie, however, decided she did not want to be involved with Mitchell. She put the car in storage and used the bank account only to store the car and to pay a speeding ticket fine for Mitchell. Upon Mitchell's return from sea Julie "rebuffed his advances and rejected his offer of marriage. . . . Julie thereafter avoided contact with Mitchell, refused his telephone calls, and 'was kind of hiding away from him.'"
First, the appellants maintained "an unwed father's consent to adoption is not required unless he complies with the literal requirements of section 20- 7-1690(A)(5)(b), which mandates that a father provide for the support of his child before the State is compelled to seek his consent to the adoption of the child." 313 S.C. at 31, 437 S.E.2d at 28. The court did not agree:
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that an unwed father may possess a relationship with his child that is entitled to constitutional protection.
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S.645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). However, "parental rights do not spring full-blown from the biological connection between parent and child. They require relationships more enduring." Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S.248, 260, 103 S.Ct. 2985, 2992, 77 L.Ed.2d 614, 626 (1983) (quoting Caban v. Mohammed, 441 380, 99 S.Ct. 1760, 60 L.Ed.2d 297 (1979)). Thus, an unwed father must demonstrate a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by coming forward to participate in the rearing of his child before his interest in personal contact with his child acquires substantial constitutional protection. U.S. Id., 463 U.S.at 261, 103 S.Ct. at 2993, 77 L.Ed.2d at 626. The mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent constitutional protection. Id.
When a child is first born, an unwed father possesses an "opportunity no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring."
Id. at 262, 103 S.Ct. at 2993, 77 L.Ed.2d at 627. However, this opportunity interest is constitutionally protected only to the extent that the biological father who claims protection wants to make the commitments and perform the responsibilities that give rise to a developed relationship, because it is only the combination of biology and custodial responsibility that the Constitution ultimately protects. E. Buchanan, The Constitutional Rights of Unwed Fathers Before and After Lehr v. Robertson, 45 Ohio State L.J. 313, 368 (1984) (hereinafter Unwed Fathers). The specific acts undertaken by the unwed father to preserve his inchoate relationship with his child, as well as the nature of the relationship he wishes to foster with the child, are of considerable importance in determining whether the unwed father has evinced a commitment to his child deserving of protection. See id. at 352; cf. Lehr, 463 U.S.at 262, 103 S.Ct. at 2994, 77 L.Ed.2d at 627 (appellant never had any significant custodial, personal, or financial relationship with child, and did not seek to establish a legal tie until after the child was two years old). Moreover, the opportunity interest is of limited duration as a constitutionally significant interest because of the child's need for early permanence and stability in parental relationships. Unwed Fathers at 365.
Against this background, we must ascertain the interaction between the requirements of section 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b) and the unusual facts before us. As always, our primary function in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature.
Spartanburg Cty. Dep't of Social Svcs. v. Little, 309 S.C. 122, 420 S.E.2d 499 (1992). A statute must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of the lawmakers. Id. We find that by enacting section 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b), the Legislature contemplated establishing general minimum standards by which an unwed father timely may demonstrate his commitment to the child, and his desire to "grasp [the] opportunity," Lehr, 463 U.S. at 262, 103 S.Ct. at 2993, 77 L.Ed.2d at 627, to assume full responsibility for his child. However, as shown by the events leading to this appeal, an unwed father's ability to cultivate his opportunity interest in his child can be thwarted by the refusal of the mother to accept the father's expressions of interest in and commitment to the child. Accordingly, we conclude that an unwed father is entitled to constitutional protection not only when he meets the literal requirements of section 20-7- 1690(A)(5)(b), but also when he undertakes sufficient prompt and good faith efforts to assume parental responsibility and to comply with the statute. See In re Chandini, 166 A.D.2d 599, 560 N.Y.S.2d 886 (1990); In re Adoption of Baby Girl S., 141 Misc.2d 905, 535 N.Y.S.2d 676 (N.Y.Surr.1988); In re Baby Girl Eason, 257 Ga. 292, 358 S.E.2d 459 (1987); In re Riggs, 612 S.W.2d 461 (Tenn.Ct.App.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S.921, 101 S.Ct. 1370, 67 L.Ed.2d 349 (1981). To mandate strict compliance with section 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b) would make an unwed father's right to withhold his consent to adoption dependent upon the whim of the unwed mother. See In re Adoption of Baby Girl S., 141 Misc.2d 905, 535 N.Y.S.2d 676 (N.Y.Surr.1988).
313 S.C. at 31-33, 437 S.E.2d at 28-29.
The court concluded Mitchell's efforts were sufficient to require his consent to the adoption.
It is undisputed that Mitchell attempted to provide monetary support to Julie during her pregnancy, but his offers were rejected by her. In addition, Mitchell endeavored to keep apprised of Julie's progress during the pregnancy, but she shielded herself from contact with him, even to the point of complaining to her superiors that Mitchell was harassing her by his numerous telephone calls. Mitchell appeared at the hospital after learning that the child had been born and offered to pay medical expenses related to the birth, but was told there were no expenses because he and Julie were in the Navy. Although Mitchell sought no legal advice regarding the means available for him to protect his parental interest in the child, his lack of action was engendered by Julie's assurance to him that she would not place the child for adoption. Further, Mitchell immediately manifested his willingness to assume sole custody of the child once he discovered that adoption proceedings had commenced.
Time and circumstances may limit the protectibility of an unwed father's interest in his child. The values that underlie protection require that the father take advantage of his opportunity to develop a relationship with his child early and completely. Unwed Fathers at 364-67, 381-82. Here, Mitchell timely demonstrated a willingness to develop a full custodial relationship with his child. Accordingly, we find that the trial judge did not err in ruling that Mitchell's consent to the adoption was required, and that the adoption failed as the result of Mitchell's withholding of his consent.
313 S.C. at 33, 437 S.E.2d at 29.
In Ex parte Black, 330 S.C. 431, 499 S.E.2d 229 (Ct. App. 1998), Contius Black and Martha Jane Dubose were both high school students when they began a sexual relationship. Black transferred to a nearby school and the two eventually ended their relationship. Dubose discovered she was pregnant and attempted to contact Black. She called his parents' house and was told that he no longer lived there, although this information was apparently false. Dubose gave birth on June 20, 1995, and gave the child over for adoption two days later.
Black learned that Dubose might be pregnant in October or November of 1995. In December 1995 he had a "chance meeting" with Dubose and learned she had delivered the child, given her up for adoption, and that he was the biological father. Black and his new wife contacted the adoption agency and Black was eventually added as a party to the adoption action. The family court determined "Black's consent for the adoption of the child was not necessary because of his 'failure to timely demonstrate a willingness to develop a custodial relationship with this child.'" 330 S.C. at 433-34, 499 S.E.2d at 231. We affirmed:
We find no merit to Black's argument that the family court erred in finding he failed to timely demonstrate a willingness to develop a full custodial relationship with his daughter.
If the biological father of a child was not married to the child's mother at the time the child was born and the child was placed with prospective adoptive parents six months or less after the child's birth, the father's consent or relinquishment for the purpose of adoption is necessary if the father paid a fair and reasonable sum, based on his financial ability, toward either the child's support or expenses incurred in connection with the mother's pregnancy or with the birth of the child. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b) (Supp. 1997). An unwed father, however, is entitled to a relationship with his child not only when he meets the literal requirements of this section, "but also when he undertakes sufficient prompt and good-faith efforts to assume parental responsibility and to comply with the statute." Abernathy v. Baby Boy, 313 S.C. 27, 32, 437 S.E.2d 25, 29 (1993) (emphasis added).
Because section 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b) explicitly conditions the necessity of a father's acquiescence in an adoption on his payment of support or financial assistance to the birth mother, any steps Black may have taken to assert his parental rights are insufficient to protect his relationship with his child unless accompanied by a prompt, good-faith effort to assume responsibility for either a financial contribution to the child's welfare or assistance in paying for the birth mother's pregnancy or childbirth expenses. Here, the record contains no evidence that Black attempted at any time to help Dubose or Bethany Christian Services with pregnancy or childbirth expenses. Moreover, even assuming Black is correct that he took prompt measures to determine paternity and assert his parental rights after Dubose told him about the child, he admitted he never offered to support the child, even after receiving the results of the paternity test, which were available about five months before the final hearing. Although the family court relied primarily on Black's lack of diligence in making inquiries about Dubose's pregnancy, the record evidence of his failure to offer support for the child as of the date of the final hearing warrants our affirmance of the family court order. See Rule 220(c), SCACR ("The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on Appeal.").
Black, 330 S.C. at 434-35, 499 S.E.2d at 231-32 (footnote omitted).
Teenagers Christine Lovin and Samuel Dunlap were involved in a sexual relationship in Parag v. Baby Boy Lovin, 333 S.C. 221, 508 S.E.2d 590 (Ct. App. 1998). Dunlap bought her a pregnancy test when she informed him she might be pregnant, but Lovin did not give him the results. The two terminated their relationship in December 1994 or January 1995. Dunlap continued to inquire whether Lovin was pregnant, but Lovin would neither admit nor deny the pregnancy. She gave birth on July 8, 1995, and gave the baby up for adoption. Lovin did not tell Dunlap about the birth until October 1995. The Parags, in connection with their action to adopt Baby Boy Lovin, hired investigator Oehler to locate the child's father. Oehler contacted Dunlap in January of 1996. Initially, Dunlap indicated "he was planning to attend college on a football scholarship and the birth of the child interfered with his life. He stated he was not interested in having the child, but was interested in releasing the child for adoption[.]" 333 S.C. at 224, 508 S.E.2d at 592. A few days later, he changed his mind; "after talking with his grandmother and father, he thought he wanted to have the child for them to rear."
The Parags commenced an action seeking adoption and the termination of Dunlap's parental rights. The family court concluded Dunlap had shown sufficient good faith efforts to assume parental responsibility and was entitled to protection under section 20-7-1690 and Abernathy. Adoption was accordingly denied. We disagreed and reversed, noting both the pre- and post-birth shortfalls of Dunlap.
It is incumbent . . . upon the unwed father to demonstrate a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by coming forward to participate in the rearing of the child before he may acquire substantial constitutional protection, and the mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent constitutional protection. While the unwed father possesses an opportunity to develop a relationship with his offspring, this opportunity is of limited duration as a constitutionally significant interest because of the child's need for early permanence and stability in parental relationships. As stated by the court in Abernathy, "Time and circumstances may limit the protectibility of an unwed father's interest in his child. The values that underlie protection require that the father take advantage of his opportunity to develop a relationship with his child early and completely." 313 S.C. at 33, 437 S.E.2d at 29 (emphasis added). Thus, the unwed father must timely "demonstrate his commitment to the child, and his desire to grasp the opportunity." 313 S.C. at 32, 437 S.E.2d at 29.
Turning to the facts at hand, we find Dunlap has failed to demonstrate sufficient prompt and good faith efforts to assume parental responsibility and comply with the statute. Dunlap was aware that Lovin might be pregnant in November of 1994. While Dunlap claims he was thwarted in his efforts to assist Lovin with the pregnancy by her avoidance of him, the record clearly shows that in October 1995, Lovin informed Dunlap of the pregnancy and the birth of his child. He was further aware at that time that the child was placed for adoption and he correctly assumed the child was in the area where Lovin had given birth. From October of 1995, Dunlap had information with which he could have sought the exact location of his child and made efforts to cultivate a relationship with the child and assume parental responsibility. However, he failed to take any action until he was contacted by the adoption investigator, three months later. Even then, the record evinces the extent of his efforts to be only submission to paternity testing and participation in the adoption action. There is absolutely no evidence that Dunlap was thwarted in any way from demonstrating his commitment to the child once he learned of the child's birth. It is uncontested Dunlap never offered any financial support or assistance to Lovin in connection with the expenses of the pregnancy and birth after learning of the child's birth. Further, the record shows Dunlap never offered any financial support for the child after learning of the child's birth. See Ex parte Black, 330 S.C. 431, 499 S.E.2d 229 (Ct. App. 1998) (assuming unwed father took prompt measures to determine paternity and assert parental rights after biological mother informed father of child's existence, where father failed to offer to support child or assist in medical expenses, his consent to adoption was not required under § 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b)). We therefore conclude Dunlap has failed to timely demonstrate his commitment to the child and has failed to show sufficient efforts to assume parental responsibility and comply with the statute as required under Abernathy. Accordingly, Dunlap's consent was not required under § 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b), and the order below denying the adoption on this basis is reversed.
Parag, 333 S.C. at 227-29, 508 S.E.2d at 593-94 (footnote omitted).
In Doe v. Brown, 331 S.C. 491, 489 S.E.2d 917 (1997), Baby Girl Ashlie was conceived as the result of Brown's statutory rape of the twelve-year-old mother. The mother relinquished her parental rights and consented to adoption. Brown, joined by his parents, intervened and opposed the adoption. The family court terminated Brown's parental rights, and that ruling was affirmed by the supreme court.
In sharp contrast to Abernathy, the family court judge in this case found Father "young, immature, and irresponsible." He found Father failed to meet the statutory requirements, and that his conduct upon learning of the pregnancy and during the next several months did not rise to the level necessary to meet the Abernathy standard. Although this Court is free to find the facts differently from the family court, we find the record overwhelmingly supports these findings. Epperly v. Epperly, 312 S.C. 411, 440 S.E.2d 884 (1994).
Brown, 331 S.C. at 497-98, 489 S.E.2d at 921.
The supreme court, in Doe v. Queen, 347 S.C. 4, 552 S.E.2d 761 (2001), held that the unwed father's efforts to assume parental responsibility were sufficient to require his consent to adoption. The biological mother informed Queen that she was pregnant and wanted an abortion. Queen attempted to convince the mother to keep the child. The two ended their relationship, and the mother informed Queen she had aborted the child. The mother and her new boyfriend signed a criminal warrant against Queen for assault with a deadly weapon, and as a condition of his bond, Queen was ordered to have no contact with the mother for one year. The child was born on September 21, 1998. When Queen was notified of the birth in November 1998 he obtained an attorney. He began saving money, prepared a nursery, and arranged for medical insurance for the child. The family court ordered that Queen's consent to adoption was required under section 20-7-1690 and Abernathy. The supreme court agreed with the family court:
Initially, we find Queen should not be penalized for his actions, or lack thereof, prior to Tanner's birth. Mother left their apartment when she was approximately 8-10 weeks pregnant, telling Queen she intended to have an abortion. She thereafter lied, telling him she had, in fact, had an abortion in
Atlanta. She then made every attempt to conceal from Queen the fact that she had not had an abortion, effectively isolating herself from him and, through court orders, ensuring that Queen could have no contact with her until well after the baby's birth.
As we noted in Abernathy, "an unwed father's ability to cultivate his opportunity interest in his child can be thwarted by the refusal of the mother to accept the father's expressions of interest in and commitment to the child. . . . To mandate strict compliance with section 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b) would make an unwed father's right to withhold his consent to adoption dependent upon the whim of the unwed mother." 313 S.C. at 32-33, 437 S.E.2d at 29. This is clearly such a case. Given Mother's representations that she had obtained an abortion, coupled with her extraordinary efforts to conceal her pregnancy from Queen, we find the preponderance of the evidence amply demonstrates that Queen's failure to support during the pregnancy was through no fault of his own and, accordingly, we decline to require literal compliance with the statute.
Moreover, we find Queen's actions subsequent to learning of Tanner's birth demonstrate "sufficient prompt and good faith efforts to assume parental responsibility."
The family court found Queen had made sufficient efforts in that he had "established a nursery, arranged for health insurance and began a savings account for the child." We agree. While Queen conceded he had not paid support during the ten-month period prior to the hearing, he testified he was willing to do so, and would reimburse the adoptive parents for their expenses. Further, due to a February 1999 order preventing the disclosure of the identity of the adoptive parents, Queen was unaware of the name or identity of the Does, and/or their location. Under these circumstances, we simply cannot say that Queen's failure to support or visit Tanner defeats his constitutional interest in establishing a relationship with his son.
When approached by the Doe's attorney, at which time Queen learned of Tanner's existence, Queen declined to sign a consent to adoption, instead indicating he needed to contact his attorney. For reasons unknown to this Court, his attorney sought and obtained an unlimited extension in which to file responsive pleadings such that an answer to the Doe's complaint was not filed until the day of the hearing. Although Queen testified he was willing and able to support the child, and had money in savings for Tanner, his mother testified that Queen's attorney never advised him to send any money to the Does.
Given the circumstances of this case, and the fact that the Does were unwilling to reveal their identity or whereabouts, we find Queen took the only reasonably available alternative measures, to wit, establishing a nursery, putting money in a bank account, and taking steps to provide for Tanner when he received custody. In our view, under the very limited facts of this case, we find Queen demonstrated sufficient prompt and good faith efforts to assume parental responsibility pursuant to Abernathy such that his literal compliance with section 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b) is excused. Accordingly, we concur with the family court that the adoption was properly denied and custody of Tanner should be transferred to Queen.
Queen, 347 S.C. at 8-10, 552 S.E.2d at 763-64 (footnote omitted).
Arscott v. Bacon, 351 S.C. 44, 567 S.E.2d 898 (Ct. App. 2002), is our most recent decision regarding consent for adoption by an unwed father. Edgar Bacon and Mary Ford began a sexual relationship in May 1999. Ford discovered she was pregnant in October 1999. Approximately two weeks later, she told Bacon she had had an abortion. In November, Bacon ended the relationship. Mary Ford was arrested for robbing Bacon's home and was incarcerated. Unconvinced that she had been pregnant or had gone through with an abortion, Bacon inquired at the local jail whether Ford was pregnant, and jail authorities indicated that she claimed to be pregnant. Upon her release, Ford stayed at a women's shelter. Bacon drove by the shelter many times in an effort to catch a glimpse of her. Ford delivered the child in May 2000 and gave it up for adoption. On July 17, 2000, Ford appeared in criminal court on the burglary charge and informed Bacon that she had given birth, although Bacon still was not convinced she had ever been pregnant. Finally, Bacon was served with notice of the adoption action in August. He opposed the adoption, claiming Ford had concealed the pregnancy.
After analyzing Abernathy, Queen, Parag, and Black, we concluded Bacon had not satisfied the requirements of the statute and precedent.
This is not a "thwarted birth father" case. In his answer, Bacon alleged Ford concealed the pregnancy from him and the first notice he had of the parental relationship was service of the complaint. The facts indicate otherwise. Ford told Bacon in October 1999 that she was pregnant. Although she told him she was going to have an abortion, Bacon stated he did not believe her, and she never produced the written proof which Bacon requested. Bacon asked authorities if Ford was pregnant and was advised she had completed a jail form indicating she was. Bacon continually asked people if Ford appeared pregnant. He drove past a local health care facility to see if he could observe her entering or leaving. He knew Ford was living in the community and staying at a local women's shelter. Although she could not contact him due to the conditions of her criminal bond, Bacon was not legally prohibited from contacting her or having someone else contact her. Most importantly, from July 17 to August 16, Bacon did nothing, despite knowing that Ford had a child and he could be the father.
The critical question is not whether Bacon believed Ford was pregnant but whether he was on notice of sufficient facts to pursue his legal rights and whether he was thwarted by the birth mother from doing so. Generally, courts rely on parties to be proactive in protecting their own rights. Bacon was on notice of sufficient facts to create an affirmative duty to investigate whether Ford was carrying or had delivered his child if he wished to claim constitutional protection. Under the provisions of the statute relating to unmarried fathers, paternity may frequently be in doubt. However, doubt as to paternity does not totally absolve a putative father of his responsibility to take steps to protect his rights. Most cases focus on pre-placement conduct except where there is no evidence the natural father knew of the birth. In light of the information Bacon had, and particularly given his personal distrust of Ford's credibility, his lack of initiative calls into question his concern about protecting his rights as a father. His actions fall short of the sufficient prompt and good faith efforts necessary for constitutional protection to attach. Thus, we conclude Bacon's consent to the adoption was not necessary.
Moreover, in the ultimate analysis, this court's lodestar is always the best interests of the child. See, e.g. Patel v. Patel, 347 S.C. 281, 285, 555 S.E.2d 386, 388 (2001) ("In a custody case, the best interest of the child is the controlling factor."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Cummings, 345 S.C. 288, 298, 547 S.E.2d 506, 511 (Ct. App. 2001) ("The best interests of the child are paramount when adjudicating a TPR case."). Our supreme court recently overruled a long line of cases holding that the termination of parental rights statute should be strictly construed and determined that it should be liberally construed consistent with the purpose of facilitating prompt adoption and the best interests of the child. See Joiner ex rel. Rivas v. Rivas, 342 S.C. 102, 536 S.E.2d 372 (2000). Likewise, we consider the child's best interests as a factor here. In Abernathy, the supreme court stated that the father's constitutional window is a limited one, balanced against the child's interest in stability. Abernathy at 32, 437 S.E.2d at 28. The record is clear that both the natural father and the adoptive parents would be fit parents and provide loving homes. However, the evaluating psychologist's testimony is also clear that taking the child out of the home he has known from birth until two years old would result in significant long-term trauma and possibly severe attachment issues. Thus, the best interests of Infant Baby Boy warrant reversal of the family court in this instance.
Due to its finding that Bacon's consent was required, the family court held the adoption by the Arscotts could not proceed. Given that Ford gave her consent to the adoption specifically to the Arscotts, the family court held that Ford could possibly initiate an action seeking to withdraw her consent for adoption. The court therefore declined to terminate her parental rights. No specific issue was raised by the appellants to the court's ruling regarding Ford. However, due to the role of the courts in protecting minors, this court may raise ex mero motu issues not raised by the parties. See Joiner at 107, 536 S.E.2d at 374. As in Parag, because Ford consented to the adoption and defaulted below, the family court erred in not terminating her parental rights. Parag at 229, 508 S.E.2d at 594. The record discloses no indication that Ford's consent to adoption of the child by the Arscotts was involuntary. Since we conclude Bacon's consent is not required, there is no reason to vitiate Ford's consent. Rather, it is in the best interests of the minor child to resolve this matter as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, we reverse the family court's decision not to terminate Ford's parental rights. Ford's parental rights are terminated, and the adoption may proceed without Bacon's consent.
Arscott, 351 S.C. at 54-56, 567 S.E.2d at 903-04.
C. Roe's Conduct
Initially, it is important to note that section 20-7-1690 is the benchmark for determining whether an unwed father's consent is required before an adoption takes place. This statutory starting point requires that a father pay a "fair and reasonable sum, based on the father's financial ability, for the support of the child or for the expenses incurred in connection with the mother's pregnancy or with the birth of the child, including, but not limited to, medical, hospital, and nursing expenses." S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1690 (Supp. 2005). Abernathy held that under certain circumstances, total compliance with the literal requirement of the statute might be excused. In Abernathy, the court declared:
an unwed father's ability to cultivate his opportunity interest in his child can be thwarted by the refusal of the mother to accept the father's expressions of interest in and commitment to the child. Accordingly, we conclude that an unwed father is entitled to constitutional protection not only when he meets the literal requirements of section 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b), but also when he undertakes sufficient prompt and good faith efforts to assume parental responsibility and to comply with the statute.
Abernathy, 313 S.C. at 32, 437 S.E.2d at 29 (emphasis added). Thus, Abernathy's sufficient prompt and good faith efforts test does not replace the statute, but rather extends the spirit of the statute to an unwed father who is prevented from meeting the statutory requirements, especially when impeded from compliance by the birth mother.
The instant case is readily distinguishable from Abernathy and Queen—the two cases in which our supreme court has found a father's consent to adoption necessary. Consent cases involve a fact-intensive analysis, and the decisions in both Abernathy and Queen were predicated upon unusual facts. Arscott, 351 S.C. at 48, 567 S.E.2d at 900 ("The importance of analyzing the facts of each specific case cannot be overstated."); Abernathy, 313 S.C. at 31, 437 S.E.2d at 29 ("[W]e must ascertain the interaction between the requirements of section 20-7-1690(A)(5)(b) and the unusual facts before us."); Queen, 347 S.C. at 10, 552 S.E.2d at 764 ("In our view, under the very limited facts of this case, we find Queen demonstrated sufficient prompt and good faith efforts[.]").
The father in Abernathy was faced with military deployment which forced his separation from the mother. He nevertheless sought to provide during the pregnancy by giving the mother full use of his car and bank account. Once the father returned, the mother "rebuffed his advances and rejected his offer of marriage." Contrastively, Roe's contributions to Melanie were too insubstantial to be of consequence. During the last half of Melanie's pregnancy Roe saw her for only fifteen minutes and contributed nothing to her except a pillow. Melanie never rebuffed his advances or otherwise demonstrated a disinterest in having Roe involved and supportive during the pregnancy. Whereas the father in Abernathy "timely demonstrated a willingness to develop a full custodial relationship with his child," 313 S.C. at 33, 437 S.E.2d at 29, Roe failed to evince a commitment to the child deserving of protection, see id. at 31, 437 S.E.2d at 28 ("The specific acts undertaken by the unwed father to preserve his inchoate relationship with his child, as well as the nature of the relationship he wishes to foster with the child, are of considerable importance in determining whether the unwed father has evinced a commitment to his child deserving of protection.").
Queen was a thwarted birth father case. The mother misled the father into believing she had had an abortion and obtained a warrant whereby Queen was ordered to have no contact with her. After learning about the baby, Queen put away money for the child, arranged for the child's medical insurance, and prepared a nursery. Here, Roe maintained contact with Melanie for only the first half of her pregnancy. It was Roe—not Melanie—who ended the contact. Melanie never refused Roe's help, but rather requested it, informing him, "I can't do it by myself." Further, Melanie attempted to reach Roe on several occasions, but he was apparently avoiding her in a surreptitious attempt to mislead her into believing he was divorcing his wife. His contributions to her were de minimis. In Queen, the court noted that "Queen's failure to support during the pregnancy was through no fault of his own[.]" In contrast, the blame for Roe's failure to support Melanie during her pregnancy falls squarely on his shoulders.
Prior to August 4, Roe's contributions to Melanie were negligible, consisting of approximately $50, cigarettes, and a few trips to fast food restaurants. After August 4 he gave her nothing but a card and a pillow. Roe's contributions to Melanie were insubstantial and inconsistent. As the Arscott court observed, "Most cases focus on pre-placement conduct except where there is no evidence the natural father knew of the birth." 351 S.C. at 54, 567 S.E.2d at 903. Roe simply failed to meet the "general minimum standards by which an unwed father timely may demonstrate his commitment to the child, and his desire to grasp the opportunity to assume full responsibility for his child." Abernathy 313 S.C. at 32, 437 S.E.2d at 29 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
II. Best-Interests Analysis
Roe contends the judge erred by going beyond the scope of the hearing and engaging in a best-interests analysis. The parties stipulated prior to trial that the Does were seeking only adoption and did not have an alternative pleading for custody. Therefore, had Roe's consent been required, Roe would have been granted custody. Given the stipulation, Roe contends the court should not have addressed the child's best interests. We disagree.
The family court's decision was based on Roe's failure to comply with the statute and case law, independent of considerations of the child's best interests. The family court's order stated: "It is clear, and this Court holds, that Mr. Roe failed both the literal language of the statute and failed to exercise his responsibilities pursuant to the Common Law Precedent." The court's legal conclusion stands on its own. Although the best-interests finding was not required, the court did not err in separately considering the child's best interests. As we stated in Arscott, "[I]n the ultimate analysis, this court's lodestar is always the best interests of the child." Arscott, 351 S.C. at 55, 567 S.E.2d at 903. Therefore, the court's best-interests analysis does not constitute reversible error.
III. Termination of Roe's Parental Rights
Roe argues that even if section 20-7-1690 and Abernathy did not require his consent to the adoption, his parental rights should not have been terminated. He maintains that because his parental rights should not have been terminated, the notice provision of section 20-7-1374 allows him to "fully participate in the adoption proceedings and assert his independent causes of action for custody."
A. Preservation
This argument was not raised in Roe's Rule 59(e) motion, and does not appear to be preserved. 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. Lucas v. Rawl Family Ltd. P'ship, 359 S.C. 505, 598 S.E.2d 712 (2004); I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000); Austin v. Specialty Transp. Services, Inc., 358 S.C. 298, 594 S.E.2d 867 (Ct. App. 2004); see also Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 594 S.E.2d 485 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting it is axiomatic than an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). An issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 597 S.E.2d 897 (Ct. App. 2004).
Roe filed a Rule 59(e) motion raising several issues, but the motion did not mention the court's termination of his parental rights. Moreover, at the Rule 59(e) hearing, Roe's counsel acknowledged the court's termination of his parental rights in passing and did not assert that the termination was in error. In asking the court to grant Roe supervised visitation counsel stated: "I know this is getting into a whole new issue here and the court certainly has ruled that his rights are to be terminated under this order. But I would ask the court and in reviewing this to address that issue as to whether or not Mr. Roe should be afforded any visitation." (Emphasis added.) Roe never complained to the family court of the termination of his parental rights. Because Roe did not raise this issue in his Rule 59(e) motion, he may not raise it for the first time on appeal.
B. Merits of the Termination
Even were this issue preserved, the family court properly denied Roe's parental rights. The United States Supreme Court case, Lehr v. Robinson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983), elucidated that a biological father has a limited window in which to secure for himself Constitutional protection of the father-child relationship:
When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by "com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child," Caban, 441
U.S., at 392, 99 S.Ct., at 1768, his interest in personal contact with his child acquires substantial protection under the due process clause. At that point it may be said that he "act[s] as a father toward his children." Id., at 389, n. 7, 99 S.Ct., at 1766, n. 7. But the mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent constitutional protection. . . .
The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a state to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.
Lehr, 463
In the case sub judice, the family court extended Roe his procedural and substantive due process rights and determined he had failed to demonstrate the level of commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood that would trigger constitutional protection. Roe correctly asserts that, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. section 20-7-1770 (Supp. 2005), biological parents lose their rights over the adoptee after a final decree of adoption is entered. However, nothing in the statute prevents this process from being completed in a bifurcated fashion as the court did here.
The family court adjudicated Roe's claim that his consent was required for adoption. By requesting remand to determine whether adoption by the Does would be in Jay's best interest, Roe is essentially seeking an impermissible second attempt at preventing the adoption. The family court did not err in terminating Roe's parental rights. Further, because his rights were properly terminated, Roe is not entitled to notice of the final adoption proceeding pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. section 20-7-1734(A) (Supp. 2005). See id. ("Notice of any proceeding initiated pursuant to this Subarticle 7 of Article 11 of Chapter 7 of Title 20 must be given to the persons or agencies specified in subsection (B) of this section, unless the person has given consent or relinquishment or parental rights have been terminated.") (emphasis added).
The order of the family court is
HEARN, C.J., and GOOLSBY, J., concur.


text:
Spring came late to my corner of the world. Now all trees are in full bloom, of course, and Nature is at its best, but only one month ago it was rainy and miserable. So much better then that I was able to attend not only one but two merry dance events! In March The Regency group met up for some informal dancing and eating. It was our usual go-to place, the Tyresö castle. And as always I failed to take any pictures of us dancing since I was so busy doing just that. The music came from a playlist, and as you can see we did not bother to move about the furniture too much. It was nice to meet some new fellows there!
There was another event in May, this time with music performed by this wonderful ensemble I wrote about after the ball last summer. This was in town, at the Kristinehof manor. Costume-wise there were many fine outfits ranging from 1750´s-1810´s.
And back to some more wig-talk:
Oh, well. Wigs are very practical and fun (don´t you think?), but next event I go to will be in my own hair. Back to 1800-something. Another post? I end this one with the period correct dance programme from the May assembly.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Did You Know?
- That Americans spend more than 18 hours per week on the road?
- That 71% look at the messages on roadside advertising?
- That 26% noted a phone number and 28% noted a website address?
- 64% of business owners saw an increase in sales after upgrading or improving their signage size, location, etc.
- The average increase in sales as a result of improving signage was 12%, while the number of transactions increased by 59%, profits increased by 56%.
- LED energy savings when replacing halogen lights is only 1.69 years! (Are you wasting energy and money?)
Chew on This…
One of the fastest growing forms of out-of-home advertising is in digital billboards with the investment projected to be $5.2 billion in 2015. We do digital billboards!
Notable Quotes
"Without a properly designed on-premise business sign, a commercial site cannot function at its full potential."
– U.S. Small Business Administration
"Without a properly maintained sign, your business will not thrive to its fullest potential."
– Sign Service Repair


text:
|Image source
Even if I no longer have an office job, I still look forward to Fridays. It's the start of the weekend. I'm particularly in a good mood. I look forward to spending more time with my husband who works long hours. And I especially cannot wait for Jed and Javi to spend quality time.
I get time off from house keeping. No chores during weekends. I also take a break from cooking. It's also the time I get a mani/pedi, waxing or eyebrow grooming. I am free to meet with people for coffee without bringing my toddler.
Weekends are when we dine properly in a nice restaurant. Sunday mornings are for church. If we get lucky, Jed and I can even watch a movie while Javi naps. We also hold movie nights. Or sometimes, we just stay at home and take things easy and relax. Work days are especially taxing for my husband so when possible, he relaxes and not think about anything during the weekend.
Friday is here. And I'm in love. Yes, that's a song from The Cure.
How will you spend your weekend?


text: Welcome to Studio R Whitney, where your hair will be pampered and treated by a professional stylists to maintain a healthy color and glow. Rebecca has been a licensed cosmetologist since 1988. Rebecca has been a licensed cosmetologist since 1988, having worked in Minnesota, Wyoming and the past 13 years in Birmingham. She has attended numerous cutting, coloring and styling classes and shows in order to keep up with the latest styles and trends, as well as being certified to perform Keratin Treatments. Looking forward to seeing you soon.


text:
DonanimHaber have run an AMD FX engineering sample through a battery of tests. The engineering sample is said to be a B1 stepping chip clocked at 3.2 GHz. The Turbo Core 2.0 can up the clock speed up to 3.6 GHz with all cores active, or a whopping 4.2 GHz with only 50% (i.e. 4 cores) active. Needless to say, these are likely not the final shipping clock speeds.
The sample features 2MB L2 cache per module, for a total of 8MB and 8MB L3 cache shared between all modules (and cores). The motherboard used was a Gigabye 990FXA-UD5, a high end 990 FX motherboard. The GPU paired is a GeForce GTX 580. We have compiled a table of the benchmarks as reported by DonanimHaber.
|Fritz Chess
|29.58, 14197 kn/sec
|PCMark 7
|Cinebench R10
|45.39 fps (P2), 136.29 (P1)
In addition, it took 19.5 seconds to complete SuperPi 1M, which is much slower than Intel competition. However, in real world benchmarks, the story is rather different. In X264 Pass 1 the Bulldozer sample (henceforth mentioned as simply "BD") results a whopping 136.29 fps. To put this in perspective, Intel's fastest CPUs can only manage ~100 fps. However, it is always Pass 2 that is the real test. BD completes with 45.39 fps. The typical speed for a Core i7 2600K is ~36 fps, while Intel's 12-thread goliaths complete in the ~47 fps range. BD is clearly far superior to the 8-thread Sandy Bridge, while nearly catching up to the Gulftown champions.
Even more impressive is the 3D Mark 11. While this score depends from platform to platform, when coupled with a GTX 580, the previous 3D Mark 11 champ Core i7 2600K struggles to achieve the P6000 mark, typically. BD easily sails by with P6265. In Fritz Chess, BD overpowers Core i7 2600K yet again, with a score of 14197 kn/sec. However, it falls short of Gulftown CPUs, which are typically in the 17000-18000 range. Finaly, in Cinebench R10, BD returns a score of 24434. With this score, it slots right in between Core i7 2600K and Core i7 990X.
The results are consistent, for the most part. In multi-threaded applications, BD significantly outperforms Core i7 2600K, and almost catches up with 6-core Gulftown. In less muti-threaded applications, like 3D Mark 11 or X264 Pass 1, thanks to an incredible 1 GHz Turbo Core, BD overtakes Gulftown CPUs. In all situations, BD ended up well ahead of Core i7 2600K. In every situation, BD was massively faster than Phenom II X6 1100T – more than 50% in many cases.
Of course, these benchmarks and comparisons should be taken with a grain of salt – especially it being an engineering sample. If previous rumours of stock clocks up to 3.8 GHz and a price tag of only $320 are true, AMD could have a real winner on their hands. Even with the engineering sample's clock of 3.2 GHz, a $320 is a bargain for a CPU of this power, wiping floors with the mighty and similarly priced Core i7 2600K. Having been delayed, FX-Series CPUs are now expected to release for desktops in the late August / early September timeline, with more information expected in the coming weeks.
Source: DonanimHaber


text:
The Will family operates a unique agribusiness in the Shenandoah Valley, a family farm where people can visit to see milk literally travel from the cow to the refrigerator. After many years in the dairy business and much searching for a viable, unique option to sustain their farm, the Will's decided on an on-farm processing plant and store in order to showcase their milk and other local … [Read more...]
Farmer Feature Friday: Showalter's Orchard
Nestled in the Shenandoah Valley on 40 acres with amazing views, Showalter's Orchard and Greenhouse has been a family affair since 1965. The business has grown and diversified in many ways just over the course of the past few decades, with the most recent major addition being the line of Old Hill hard cider products in 2011. The Showalter family hosts a variety of events throughout the … [Read more...]
Feature Friday: Harrisonburg City Public Schools
Andrea laughs if you take her too seriously. She also laughs if you call her a national leader in the farm to school arena. However, don't let that fool you. Andrea Early is the Executive Director of School Nutrition for Harrisonburg City Public Schools, and started adding locally produced items into her school nutrition budget in 2007. Now almost a decade later, she has expanded her local … [Read more...]


text:
I actually wanted to be working on another quilt which fell out of the sky ( well my one and only fabric shelf in my room as most of my workroom is still packed away awaiting the completion of the shed one day in my dreams...). I had got together all the bits, sorted out what i wanted to do but forgot that at the moment most of my basting pins are in a big forrest quilt which I pinned during the year ( but which is too big for Syria so has been left for a later date) and in the banksia quilt I had been working on. I was anxious to get on with the new idea but will have to finish the banksia quilt first. All the quilts I am making for Syria are between 60-80cm wide and between 130-150 cm long as most of the spac ein the gallery is long narrow spaces.
I always like how the stitching changes the banksia quilts- and in a sense they are really more embroidery than anything else.I often multi layer the thread on the banksia flowers but decided to leave these simply stitched with gold thread. Most of the "Australian" quilts I have made are about my place- the things that surround me, I guess to evoke sense of place and i also wanted to represent banksias in a number of different guises- I still have one to go- and perhaps another if time will allow. Which started me thinking about "series" .Are these banksia ( and I have made a number over the years ) a series? Yes the flower is usually represented in the same way with the embroidery ( though that has started to change of late) but each quilt is quite distinctly different- either through the background fabric ( which i dye with quite a lot of deliberation) the printing that I use and off course colour and then size and even whether I border them. I am not sure - I have never thought of them in that way, as I make them as needs be- if I have an exhibition I always have one banksia quilt because it for me represents home more than anything and then also Australia.
And because I am sitting and sewing and the mind wanders, i dwelt on another thing that was said to me whilst doing my masters by one of the supervisors- that quilts were easy for me and that therefore I wasn't pushing hard enough. I have long pondered this comment- i should have asked where should I push to? And then are quilts easy? I know I make very few quilts which don't have layers of meaning- there is the readily apparent surface but some of it involves personal symbolism, a story- there is often a lot of emotion in my quilts- where do you push to? And whilst i am on this train it was also said I should use the process of weathering destruction and aging and wearing/tearing away, but by nature I am a builder, I build from the bottom up starting with white cloth- making the dye sing is an exciting process for me and then nutting out how to best use that piece of fabric- I accrue steps along the way to build what I am doing- i don't tear away unless it aids the building process. It's almost like I start with the blank page visually though with some thought about ideas and brain storm in the dye bath and build a mind map and go from there. Somehow this process was questioned in what i was doing. I would be interested in what other people think about how they " emerge" their work and how they approach their work.


text:
Provider Support -Important Information in response to COVID-19
General Provider Information
All waiver providers are certified by Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities for the Individual
Options, Level One, and Self-Empowered Life Funding (SELF) Waivers. The Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities (DODD) has an online application process called the Provider Certification Wizard.
For assistance with provider applications, training and resources, providers may contact our Provider Resource Coordinator, Samantha LaSalvia 440-350-5123 or 440-918-5123. or email email@example.com. To learn more about how Samantha can assist you click here.
Click here for more information


text:
2017 at NOOR was a wonderful year full of fairy-tale weddings, magical events, precious moments, tears of joy, endless laughter and dancing into the wee hours. As we wave goodbye to 2017 we would like to thank all of our amazing couples and their friends and families for entrusting us with their very special days. A special thank you to all of our clients for choosing NOOR for their Birthday Celebrations, Corporate Events, Quinceanera's, Anniversaries, High School Dances, Graduations and more. Thank you too, to our vendor friends who made every single occasion spectacular with their endless talents and hard work. We are excited to work with you all again in 2018!
Please enjoy a few highlights from some of the many events we were joyfully a part of in 2017.
NOOR's Rose Parade Champagne Brunch has become an annual well-loved tradition and 2017 was no exception. We enjoyed awesome views of the Rose Parade from our Sofia Balcony.
NOOR's Bridge to Love provides a romantic backdrop for a wonderful stolen moment. Here's Roberta & Kevin, beautifully captured by Tom Keene of LA Digital Photo. Wedding Coordinator: Pro Details Events.
Shelley & Ken's first dance in our Sofia Ballroom courtesy of Wendell Alvero.
Ali & Shiva danced all night at their beautiful Persian Wedding. Captured by photographer Alicia Mink of Mink Photography. Wedding Coordinator: Alicia C Creative.
Mike Purdy of MOOD Photo & Video getting in on the action at Ella & Joe's Beautiful Sofia Ballroom Wedding.
The Belle of the Ball. Alyssa celebrates her Quinceanera, captured by photographer Peardon Carillo | Event Coordinator: Chic Ambiance Events | Bakery: A Sweet Design.
We love this artistic capture of NOOR's brand new "Infinity" Logo by Herman Au.
Kimberley & Eric exchanging vows on the NOOR Terrace on their St Patrick's Day Wedding. Captured by photographer Abraham Alejandro. Wedding Coordinator: Sweetest Love Moments | Floral Design: Irises Designs.
Joey & Karen in the tunnel of love captured by Full Spectrum Photography. Wedding Coordinator: Rose Gomez of Rose Petal Events. Floral Design: J & L Floral Boutique.
Beautiful capture from Esther & John's NOOR Terrace Wedding Ceremony by Duane Peck of Digital Studios.
NOOR together with Mad Love Events' Fall Soirée was an enchanted evening and everything was perfection thanks to the hard work of all the vendors involved. Photograph by Lumiere Imagery.
The amazing Wenfloral Design Studio turned the Sofia Ballroom into the hanging gardens of Babylon for our Fall Soirée. Photograph by Lumiere Imagery.
Not a dry eye in the house at Ally & Eddy's perfect spring wedding. Captured by Erich Chen Photography. Wedding Coordinator: A Whimsical Day Events.
Walking on air… Jessica & Mario, moments after saying "I do" in our Ella Ballroom. Captured by Jillian Marie Photography.
Julie & William by the NOOR sign at their beautiful Sofia Ballroom Wedding, captured by Revik Photography. Wedding Coordinator: The Flower Girls
Vahe celebrated his graduation in style in the Ella Ballroom. Captured by photographer Irmina Hamilton.
Kristin & Amanda's beautiful Wedding Ceremony in the Ella Ballroom, captured by Michael Farmer Photography. Wedding Coordinator: So Smitten Events | Floral Design: Flower Couture by Stephanie.
Josh & Celina tied the knot on the NOOR Terrace, captured by Simply Two Photography.
Larissa & Ryan's beautiful Sofia Ballroom Wedding was very emotional. Their entire wedding party serenaded them! Captured by photographer Kevin Dinh | Wedding Coordinator: Wife of the Party.
A beautiful moment from Tara & Eli's romantic NOOR | Sofia Ballroom wedding, captured by Callaway Gable | Wedding Coordinator: Especially 4 You Events.
A wonderful time was had by all… at Sophia & Sanjay's colorful Wedding, captured by D Park Photography | Wedding Coordinator: Ethnic Essence.
Bentley Pasadena enjoyed a fun filled night of Scotch & Cigars plus kilts on our Sofia Balcony.
The joy of love at Danielle & Bobby's wonderful wedding, captured by Tony Le Films.
These little angels stole the show at Robert & Kristine's Wedding. Photo by Sam Lim Studio.
Later in the evening it was raining money in the Sofia Ballroom. Photo by Sam Lim Studio.
Our Liquid Nitrogen Ice Cream Bar is always a big attraction! Photo from Mike's Pepperdine Graduation & Birthday Party by Shutter Instinct.
A unique view of our Sofia Ballroom featuring our in-house DJ, DJ Herick at Gayane & Aram's Wedding. Captured by photographer Erik Fischer | Florist: Elegant Earth Designs.
Isla celebrated her 10th birthday in our Ella Ballroom and wowed her guests with a virtuoso violin performance! Photo by Free Hope Photography.
This perfect capture of Jennifer & Clint's romantic moment on the NOOR Terrace is by Photographers Lin & Jirsa | Wedding Coordinator: Wife of the Party | Floral Design: A Touch of Lavender.
Leah & Jon's Sofia Ballroom Wedding was a wonderful celebration. This joyous moment was captured by photographer Jenny Smith & Co | Wedding Coordinator: Mayberry Events.
Jessica & Justin's Wedding came complete with UCLA Mascots! Captured by Sam Lim Studio.
Aracely & Alfred's Wedding was one long party from start to finish. Captured by Jessie of A Story in Time Photography.
2017 was the year NOOR won Best of Pasadena for the 7th year in a row! We were also the proud winners of Wedding Spot's Best of 2017, and The Knot's Best of Weddings 2018!
Cassie & Lee's first dance beautifully captured by photographer Chris Wojdak | Wedding Coordinator: Level Events.
Kiah & Troy made KCAL 9 News when the wedding they had planned had to be rearranged at the last minute because of the Latuna Fire. NOOR staff did a bang up job, and with just a few hours to rearrange the entire event Kiah & Troy ended up with a picture book wedding. Captured by Photographer Jennifer Jasso.
A romantic capture on the NOOR Terrace at Anthony & Sheryl's beautiful wedding by Tony Le Films.
Love sparkles at Elizabeth & Joseph's Wedding, captured by Photographers Brett & Tori | Wedding Coordinator: Willow Tree Weddings.
Before we knew it the year was coming to a close and Christmas season was upon us filled with a plethora of awesome Holiday Parties!
NOOR's owner and GM Robert Shahnazarian pictured here with DJ Richard Blade at our NYE 2018!
NOOR's owners Robert & Maggie with their son Dvean and NYE 2018 partygoers! It was the second year in a row we had partied all night long in our Ella Ballroom along with DJ Richard Blade and we had a blast!… again!! Can't think of a better way to end such a fabulous year. We Hope you all had as much fun as we did.


text:
They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord's Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity - all the while praising God and enjoying the goodwill of all the people. And each day the Lord added to their fellowship those who were being saved.
Acts 2:46-47 NLTse
Amazingly, this is my third Rector's report to Annual Vestry. The last twenty-eight months appear to have flown by, which is quite possibly a good thing and a sign that we are an active and alive community. There are always milestones that mark the journey, of which tonight's meeting is an important one as we take stock of where we are spiritually and materially as an Anglican community of Faith in this part of Cape Town.
Thank you
Looking back over 2015 my thanks to you all for the manner in which you continue to embrace Dawn and I, and for your ongoing commitment to the work of God in and through this Parish community. My special thanks to Dawn who continues to support and encourage me on so many levels both personally and professionally, whose unstinting love and care keeps me centered and focused. My grateful thanks to our Parish Secretary, Bev Shaw, whose patience and resourcefulness appears to know few limits, even in the midst of Morning Market frenzy! I am thankful for each one of you, and especially those who have stepped forward and give leadership to one or other aspect of our Church life, and who include others in the process. My particular thanks to our outgoing Churchwardens and members of Parish Council for your willingness to share your insight and wisdom, and in helping give direction to our common life; and to our (retired) assisting Clergy and our Layministers for your ongoing commitment to our worship and pastoral care; and to our Finance team for ensuring we are responsible with Parish resources. Thanks, too, to the many in our midst who serve without expectation of acknowledgment or reward except knowing that God sees your gift to us.
One of the main challenges of 2015 was an administrative one: the creation of a treasury team to pick up the responsibilities previously handled by Noel Peagam. My thanks to Frya Griffiths, Bev Shaw, and Simon Gilbert, for the exemplary manner in which they have ensured that the new financial systems, controls, and communication structures are now in place. I am appreciative of our Auditor, André Jager, staying on to oversee these changes.
2015 saw a Parish Weekend away at Volmoed, a good opportunity to reflect, pray, and share together for those who were able to attend; the return of the marriage course - a wonderful gift for marital renewal - attended by a number of Parish couples, including one couple who returned for a "refresher"; the Morning Market again reaching new heights in terms of effort and income; a series of Quiet Mornings offering a wonderful breadth of spiritual input, alongside our Lent Course that offered refreshing insights into the Apostles' Creed, and a Stewardship Course that got us thinking more broadly. Additionally, the Sunday 07:30 congregation has transitioned to only using A Common Book of Prayer (SAPB) once a month, embracing the liturgy of An Anglican Prayer Book 1989 more fully; our monthly Sunday evening Family-focused Service has found traction, and the regular attendance during term-time by the St Cyprian's Boarders has brought new life to Sunday evenings as a whole. Home groups, Children's Church, our midweek services, Thursday Prayers, ad hoc Youth events and other "normal" aspects of Parish life have also continued - together with all the above - enabling us to give life to our wider mission, as well as to our vision to be a community "serving each other; serving the world".
As a Parish we are experiencing a shift as older parishioners and those who have served our community in leadership positions over the last couple of decades, are indicating their need to step aside and allow space for a younger generation to step up to the plate. Since my appointment as Rector, Noel Peagam had the courage to lead the way, and Freya Griffiths reflected that courage in accepting the position of Honorary Treasurer; Graham Michael has followed suit and Jim te Water Naude has courageously stepped in to facilitate the 2016 Morning Market. Stepping aside and creating space for others, even if not always necessarily "younger" others, requires a special level of self-confidence and willingness to acknowledge that one is not indispensable and that perhaps God wishes to use one in other spaces. Thus the process continues, enabling us tonight to acknowledge André Jager as he steps down as Auditor, and Jill Joslin who has stepped aside as our Prayer coordinator (both after many years of faithful service), and we thank Doug and Rosemary Wallace for being willing to step in to these respective responsibilities. We are not unusual in experiencing this "generational shift", and the challenge is for younger generations here at St Andrew's to step forward. The Tough's, Faure's, Coombe's, Zwicky's, Freya Griffiths and Lauric Bakomito (amongst others) have shown us in recent years that it is possible to have young families and/or demanding and burgeoning professional careers and still contribute meaningfully as Churchwarden, Treasurer or Parish Councilor. I do pray that by the end of tonight's Vestry meeting others will have had similar courage and we will be able to complete the election of Churchwardens, Parish Councilors and various representatives.
In my 2015 report I reflected on our growing awareness that while our mission statement finds substantial traction through our Ministry to the Needy and we have a considerable impact on individuals, families and communities less resourced than ourselves, we also need to focus on caring for each other. The tag-line, "serving each other; serving the world", reflects this growing awareness. One of the outcomes of participating in the Diocesan Stewardship Course during October last year was that we identified a need to become more personally involved in our outreach activities, leading to SA-Yes being invited to address our inaugural Parish Breakfast on the possibility of our being involved with them in youth mentorship, specifically of young people preparing to engage with the adult world after time spent in various Children's and Youth homes. This year's Sunday interaction with the Gospel of Luke, alongside the focus of our 2016 Lent Course People of the Way, is encouraging us to be aware of those on the outskirts of society, and to become more aware of who we do not "see" in our own community, to become more conscious of being friendly and caring toward each other, and especially of new-comers and visitors in our midst.
Our Future
Being "Church" in the 21st century, and in the context of the social, economic and political climate in South Africa, is challenging. Re-imagining ourselves and seeking to understand God's purposes for us in today's fast-changing and often dislocated society - and the accompanying uncertainty - is confusing, to say the least. Perhaps it is sufficient in these times just to seek to "be", and in "being" to allow God to work in us and through us.
On a practical level, we need to make decisions on where we go with our building programme as we do not yet have sufficient funds to give full go-ahead to the project, and the Building Committee Chairperson, David Sykes, will make a proposal in this regard. We are in a process with Kildare Pre-Primary School in negotiating a new long-term lease, a complex discussion linked to our building plans.
While these are of practical concern, they are linked to our vision and reflect something of how we perceive ourselves as God's people in Newlands; and what we perceive our purpose to be. We have a strong commitment through our Ministry to the Needy to communities less resourced than ourselves, but I am not sure that we have any clear sense of our purpose and God's call on us to the well resourced community of Newlands and surrounds in which God has placed us.
This may be the challenge for 2016: to define our local role and ministry.
Rector7 March 2016


text:
SYRACUSE — Clear Channel's Newsradio 570 WSYR is hoping you'll help them to rebuild a Syracuse playground tomorrow. Pledge lines will be open for the "Let's Rebuild the Playground Radiothon" from 6am to 7pm Tuesday.
Money will go towards rebuilding the Wallie Howard Jr. Memorial Playground at the city's Van Duyn Elementary School. Six children are accused of burning down the playground on July 25th. The structure was built by volunteers in 1995, in honor of a Syracuse police officer who lost his life in the line of duty.
Pledges can be phoned in at (315) 472-0638 on Tuesday between 6am and 7pm. You can also pledge online anytime at 570wsyr.com.
WSYR says the first $5000 in contributions will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the Central New York Community Foundation.


text:
Everything Related to the Steelpan Instrument and Music
Many Steelbands in all categories enter Panorama and if they fail to move on to the next round pack up their instruments and wait for appearance and assistance to bands payments and you will not hear from them again until next Panorama. Why can the powers that be make it mandatory for all panorama finalists in all categories to make an appearance on the road Carnival Monday or Tuesday or face being discipline After all we want to see and hear PAN on the road on Carnival days and not Panorama alone. Steelband and Calypso is our culture and belongs in Carnival, Visitors come from all over the world to experience our culture, Expats are keeping our culture alive all over the world and the locals must do the same by KEEPING PAN IN CARNIVAL.
Views: 944
Trinidad and Tobago is a free country, isnt it?
earl richards, I for one love your topic, at this time it will take a constant bombardment of comments on the importance of the involvement of the syeelband in carnival to convince the powers that be that their attitude toward this area of our culture is unacceptable.
No powers that be have the authority to tell people in Trinidad and Tobago if they can play Mas or not, far less, which bands or steelbands should come out on the roads to play on carnival days. Trinidad and Tobago is a free country, and THAT freedom is expressed on carnival days especially. Our ancestors fought for that freedom late 1800's early 1900's. You can ask nicely, doh tell them.
Yes! Free and Dumb is a bitter pill to swallow. "Freedom" emancipate ourselves from this mental slavery.
This is my thinking on this; the Bands are paying members of Pan Trinbago, the World Governing Body for The Steel Pan, so they (PT) have the authority to penalize the bands who fail to comply with this new rule if enacted. They (steel bands) are penalized for other infringements in the Panorama competition. They will have to accept the same consequence for pan on the road. It CAN be DONE and bands can live with it.
Time to rewrite the rules to bring Pan on the Road.
Not on Carnival days!!
And if not, disciplined?? Whey we livein??
BERTEL you said MANDATORY and FREE whey we living. I am sure you were upset a few years ago when your favorite band had a problem getting fans and supporters of the stage and rumor was the band was penalized for spending too much time on stage and points were deducted which may have cause them the Panorama title, you did not say we free and your band could stay as long as they like on stage. also in 1987 a band played a fantastic performance on stage and rumor had it that the tune was too long and it cause them the title, they made up for it in the I.C.P. Exodus had too many players on stage a few years ago and they took a long time to start and members were behind their pans on stage but could not play because it was MANDATORY for them to follow the rules. How would you feel when your band win Panorama and do not make an appearance on the road on Carnival days .
earl, yuh cant tell people what and where to play on carnival days. The traffic lights are off, you cant even tell them where to go. Thats my point.
Bertel: Dem fellahs leave and went away and leave you in charge but you are not doing a good job at all -- that is why dey fantasizing and pieintheskying and complaining so. Yuh was supposed to keep PAN ON THE ROAD and instead yuh let the DEE JAYS take over town. If dem fellahs did stay in Trinidad PAN woulda been all over town STILL -- rolling on the ground with man and woman pushing.
Man still coming on this forum and saying WHAT PANTRINBAGO SHOULD BE DOING. That is the biggest GAP IN KNOWLEDGE anybody could display.
The binoculars are out in full, Claude!
© 2020 Created by When Steel Talks. Powered by


text:
Yesterday, all around e-learning superstar Zsolt Olah posted an article on LinkedIn titled Read Only If You Know What's In The Picture. This article sparked an interesting revelation (for me and others who know me) on Twitter, and I'm a lady of my words. This blog post will explain how IKEA manuals inspired my interest in technical writing.
Well before I knew that Instructional Design was a role that existed, I was working through my undergraduate degree with a double major in Linguistics and Psychology. My end goal was to go to grad school and become a Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP), but if that went south I had found an interest in technical writing…from my horrible experience with IKEA how-to manuals.
I joke that my husband and I never argue…unless we're hanging something or putting together furniture, and it's very true. When we bought our house, we had a friend come over for several weekends to mediate our furniture construction…or we probably would have killed each other.
In any event, my interest in technical writing came after a particularly trying IKEA order arrived. We ordered two desks, a coffee table, and two end tables. The tables were pretty straight forward, but the directions for the desks just didn't make sense. In Zsolt's post, I'm usually a C person. I'll consider the A and B options, but typically I jump right to the manual and just get it done. Even if that means I have to take something apart and rebuild it.
The how-to manual for these particular desks was not accurate. No matter how closely we followed the manual, the desks were not coming together like they did in the images. The desks did not have all of the holes indicated in the images. The desks were the bane of my existence. I'm sure I cried. We somehow ended up getting them together (how, I don't remember, because I've blocked out the trauma), and they were our desks from that point until we bought our house years later, when they were one of the first things we put out on the curb for garbage day.
Because of how awful and inaccurate the how-to manuals were for those desks, I vowed that I could write a better user manual, and began researching how one becomes the person to write such manuals. In my research, I discovered technical writing as a career path, and when I didn't get in to grad school for SLP, I stumbled into my first Instructional Design gig. It was here that I discovered I didn't necessarily want to write how-to manuals for the rest of my life, but I did occasionally get my taste of writing user guides and have since written two books that are essentially user guides.
In the end, I'm very happy that IKEA manuals prompted my interest in technical writing as I may never have found a passion for Instructional Design and E-Learning Development.