THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF
In The Court of Appeals
Robert Widdicombe, Respondent,
v.
Rachel P. Dupree, Appellant.
Appeal From
Paul W. Garfinkel, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No.
2005-UP-490
Submitted August 1, 2005 � Filed August 17, 2005
AFFIRMED
Rachel P. Tucker-Cales, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant.
Paul B. Ferrara, III, of Summerville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Rachel P. Tucker-Cales Dupree disputes a family court order finding her in contempt for failing to pay child support. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Haselden v. Haselden, 347 S.C. 48, 63, 552 S.E.2d 329, 337 (Ct. App. 2001) (defining contempt); Smith-Cooper v. Cooper, 344 S.C. 289, 300, 543 S.E.2d 271, 277 (Ct. App. 2001) (defining willful conduct); and Henderson v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 190, 197, 379 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1989) (holding that a finding of contempt is within the sound discretion of the family court judge). We find the issue of subject matter jurisdiction not properly before this court because it is the subject of another appeal currently pending before this court.
AFFIRMED.[1]
ANDERSON, HUFF, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.