In a troubling development at the intersection of child welfare oversight and parental rights, the family of David Steele and Kim Esco, whose case was first reported by The Daily Counter News, have filed an appeal following a court decision that severed their parental rights — and now allege that the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) is actively preventing visitation with their daughters in what the parents say is retaliatory.
Background and prior proceedings
The Escos’ two young daughters were removed by DSS in Sumter County after the parents had sought housing and benefit assistance during a time of financial strain. According to their account, the removal came without prior investigation or hearing. The Daily Counter News The original report on their case noted that within months of the removal, DSS had initiated adoption proceedings for one daughter. The Daily Counter News
Previously, the family had successfully contested a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) attempt by DSS in family court; the July 2025 article described the agency’s second TPR attempt, which the family and their advocates argue is evidence of systemic problems in DSS’s practices. The Daily Counter News
New court outcome: custody lost due solely to length of children’s time in system
According to the updated information now available, the Escos have lost custody of their daughters — not because of any adjudicated abuse or neglect findings, but strictly on the basis that their children had remained in the foster-care system for an extended period of time. What’s more, legal precedent apparently holds that time in care alone is not sufficient grounds by itself for termination of parental rights in South Carolina. The parents say the higher court decision cited this principle.
That means the decision to terminate rights was reached despite the absence of a finding that the parents had failed to remedy harmful conditions or were unfit — and that raises serious concerns under statute and case law about whether the statutory grounds for TPR were met. Under South Carolina law, the mere fact of a child’s prolonged stay in foster care does not automatically justify termination; rather, there must be clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground and that termination is in the best interests of the child. Justia+2CaseLaw+2
Parents appeal and allege retaliation through visitation denial
In response to the court’s decision, the parents have filed an appeal. They contend that the fundamental decision—terminating parental rights based solely on duration of custody—was in error and are seeking a reversal or remand of the order.
Additionally, the family alleges that DSS is now refusing to facilitate or allow further visitation between the daughters and their biological parents, despite existing court orders permitting such visits. They claim the agency’s refusal to coordinate or transport the children amounts to retaliatory interference with their rights and undermines the court-ordered plan for reunification or at least meaningful contact. The earlier article referenced that DSS “has repeatedly failed to bring the daughter … to scheduled visits, simply stating that the child ‘doesn’t want to attend.’” The Daily Counter News
Legal and policy implications
This case raises several key issues for children’s-services practice and parental-rights law:
- Whether DSS’s reliance on the length of time in care, without additional findings of parental fault or unfitness, satisfies the statutory criteria for termination of rights in South Carolina.
- The potential due-process concerns if the sole basis for termination is time in custody rather than parental conduct or neglect.
- The risk of visitation denial by DSS as a form of de-facto reunification barrier — especially significant if the parents are actively appealing termination.
- The broader oversight question of how child-welfare agencies balance the urgency of permanency for children with the legal protections afforded to biological parents.
Legal analysts point out that in South Carolina, the best-interest determination and the statutory ground(s) must both be clearly established before a family court may terminate parental rights. Justia+1 Courts have reversed or remanded cases when termination was deemed premature. Justia
What happens next
The appeal means the case will likely proceed to a higher court — possibly the South Carolina Court of Appeals or even the state Supreme Court — where the record will be reviewed for legal error in how the family court applied the statute and precedent. Meanwhile, the parents await a decision on their request to enforce visitation rights. They have expressed their intent to continue public advocacy around the case, citing concerns not only for their family but for systemic conduct in DSS work in rural counties.
DSS has declined to comment publicly beyond standard policy statements about child safety and permanency.
UPDATE:
In an email sent by Family Court Judge Taylor after having heard the filed petition to continue the visitation and violations by DSS, Judge Taylor wrote this email:
Judge Taylor raises serious concerns about the conduct of the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) in an ongoing family court matter. In the correspondence, Judge Taylor wrote:
“The Court has concerns about how DSS has handled this case. The Department suspended the parents’ visitation in the month of October 2025 based upon the recommendations of E.S.’s therapist. The agency suspended the parents’ visitation despite the fact the Motion to suspend visitation was pending and had not been addressed by the Court. Additionally, the agency told the children that the visit they had with their parents on November 17th was their last visit despite the fact the Court had not ruled on the agency’s Motion to suspend the parents’ visitation. These actions by the Department were improper.”
The judge’s remarks echo longstanding criticisms directed at DSS, which has repeatedly been accused by parents’ rights advocates of exceeding its statutory authority and contributing to acts of parental alienation. These allegations often extend beyond the agency itself to include individuals contracted by DSS, such as therapists and Guardians ad Litem, whose recommendations can carry significant weight in custody and visitation determinations.
Compounding these concerns is an apparent delay in the issuance of a formal family court order. South Carolina statutes require that family court orders be reduced to writing within 30 days. Despite Judge Taylor’s memo being authored in November 2025, no written order has yet been entered. Under standard procedure, responsibility for drafting the order rests with the attorney representing DSS.
Further scrutiny has been directed at the court’s decision to grant DSS discretionary authority to terminate future visitations if the agency deems it necessary. Critics argue that this authority was conferred despite the judge’s own findings that DSS acted improperly in suspending visitation and communicating those suspensions to the children prior to a court ruling. Advocates for the parents contend that the agency’s conduct demonstrates a pattern of bias and mismanagement, yet DSS continues to exercise significant control over parent-child contact in the case.
Taken together, the issues raised in Judge Taylor’s email, the absence of a timely written order, and the continued delegation of authority to DSS have intensified calls for greater oversight and accountability within South Carolina’s child welfare and family court systems.
This case has brought support for the parents and children in this case, and has allowed other parents who are dealing with South Carolina Department of Social Service to come forward with their own horror stories of having to deal with DSS’s mishandlings and acts of alienation.