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 SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,
Melissa Angela M. and Andy M.,
of whom Andy M. is Appellant.
Appeal From Greenville County
Peter R. Nuessle, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-033
Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January 14, 2009
Rodney Richey, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Deborah Murdock, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Robert A. Clark, of Greenville, for Guardian Ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Andy M. (Father) appeals the trial court’s denial of his continuance motion at a hearing on the merits where the South Carolina Department of Social Services sought a finding of educational neglect and substantial risk of physical neglect by Father with regard to his son. Father argues the trial court should have granted the continuance because Father was appearing in Federal Bankruptcy Court the day of the hearing, and “the bankruptcy court has priority over the family court.” We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266, 609 S.E.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding the granting of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion); State v. McMillian, 349 S.C. 17, 21, 561 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2002) (holding reversals of refusals of continuances are about as rare as the proverbial hens’ teeth).
HUFF, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.