SCDSS v. George Cleveland, III - Child Support Order Appeal

South Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 4th, 2026

Detected March 13th, 2026

Summary

The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed a family court's denial of a motion to stay enforcement of an administrative child support order. The appellant waived challenges to the original order by not appealing it directly.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the family court's decision to deny George Cleveland, III's motion to stay enforcement of a July 19, 2022 administrative child support order of default. Cleveland also appealed the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The appellate court found that Cleveland waived any challenge to the original child support order because he did not appeal it directly, instead only appealing the subsequent denials of his motions.

This ruling means the administrative child support order remains in effect. Regulated entities, particularly government agencies involved in child support enforcement, should note that failure to directly appeal an adverse order, even if challenging subsequent procedural denials, can result in waiver of substantive claims. No specific compliance actions are required for other entities, as this is a specific case outcome.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

SCDSS v. George Cleveland, III

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 2023-000163
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (1)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

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,

George Cleveland, III, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000163

Appeal From Oconee County
Karen F. Ballenger, Family Court Judge,

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-102
Submitted February 18, 2026 – Filed March 4, 2026

AFFIRMED

George Cleveland, III, of Townville, pro se.

Christopher Laurie Newton, of the South Carolina
Department of Social Services, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: George Cleveland, III, appeals the family court's denial of his
motion to stay enforcement of the court's July 19, 2022 administrative child
support order of default and the denial of his Rule 59(e) of the South Carolina
Rules of Civil Procedure motion, which sought reconsideration of the denial of the
motion to stay enforcement. On appeal, Cleveland contends the statutory scheme
authorizing administrative child support orders of default violates the procedural
due process rights provided for under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and Article I, section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution;
thus, he contends this court should reverse the July 19, 2022 administrative child
support order of default. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR.

Cleveland served and filed a notice of appeal challenging only the family court's
denial of his motion to stay enforcement of the court's July 19, 2022 administrative
child support order of default and the family court's denial of his Rule 59(e)
motion. He did not appeal the July 19, 2022 administrative child support order of
default. Therefore, we hold Cleveland waived any challenge to the July 19, 2022
order. See Atl. Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 329,
730 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2012) ("[A]n unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of
the case."). Because Cleveland does not raise any issue challenging the orders on
appeal, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

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