When Parents Can’t Agree

• View Larger Image

When Parents Can’t Agree

When Parents Can’t Agree: Lessons from a Contentious South Carolina Custody Case
Abbas-Ghaleb v. Ghaleb (2024) stands as a sobering reminder of how parental conflict can escalate when communication breaks down entirely. The South Carolina Court of Appeals’ recent decision in this Aiken County case offers important guidance on custody determinations, decision-making authority, and equitable distribution in high-conflict divorces.

The Background: A Marriage That Never Found Its Footing
Khalil Abbas-Ghaleb and Anna Ghaleb’s brief marriage was marked by separation from the start. Despite marrying in June 2017, they lived apart for most of their marriage—he working as an advisory scientist in Aiken, she serving as a military linguist in the Washington, D.C. area. When Anna became pregnant and left the military to move to Aiken, the couple’s fundamental incompatibility became impossible to ignore.

The warning signs appeared early. On their wedding night, disagreements began. On their honeymoon, divorce was already being discussed. What followed was a marriage characterized by control, surveillance, and an inability to compromise on even the most basic parenting decisions.

The Custody Battle: When Every Decision Becomes a Battlefield
A Litany of Disagreements
The parties’ disputes over their daughter’s care were extraordinary in their scope and intensity. They disagreed about:

Medical decisions (vaccinations, vitamin K shots, antibiotics)
Feeding methods (breastfeeding techniques, formula supplementation, solid foods)
Healthcare providers (frenectomy procedures, chiropractor visits)
Daily care routines (bath temperatures, diaper changes, swaddle tightness)
Safety monitoring (video surveillance of the child)
Religious upbringing and baptism
Travel permissions

These weren’t merely different parenting philosophies—they represented a complete breakdown in the ability to co-parent.

The Prebirth Message: A Smoking Gun
Perhaps the most damaging evidence was a WhatsApp message Husband sent before their daughter’s birth, offering Wife an ultimatum: live by his rules or receive no support. The family court judge called it “a most unbelievable piece of evidence” showing “complete inflexibility and a total lack of emotional connection” with the child. The Court of Appeals noted that while these words were likely “designed to hurt Wife,” they revealed concerning rigidity and control issues.

The Court’s Decision on Custody
The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s award of primary custody to Wife, noting several key factors:

1. Primary caretaker status: Wife had been the stay-at-home parent and primary caretaker
2. Controlling behavior: Husband exhibited a “my way or no way” tendency acknowledged even by his friends and colleagues
3. Expert opinions: Dr. Harari’s psychological evaluation raised concerns about Husband’s rigid, authoritarian parenting style
4. Medical decision-making patterns: Wife’s history of refusing recommended medical care was problematic

However, the court recognized both parents love their daughter and found no evidence of physical abuse.

Split Decision-Making Authority: An Innovative Solution
Given the parents’ complete inability to agree on anything, the family court took the unusual step of dividing decision-making authority by category:

Wife: Primary physical custody and all non-medical decision-making authority
Husband: Medical decision-making authority (with warnings about abuse of this authority)

This split was necessary because, as expert witnesses testified, these parents simply cannot effectively co-parent. The Court of Appeals affirmed this arrangement, calling it “not only the best way to relieve some of the conflict between these parties while serving [their daughter’s] best interests, it is the logical choice in this unfortunate situation.”

Medical Decision-Making: A Sword That Cuts Both Ways
The award of medical decision-making to Husband was noteworthy given his controlling tendencies. However, Wife’s track record was more concerning:

Refusing vitamin K shots and prophylactic eye treatment at birth
Delaying vaccinations despite medical recommendations
Refusing to follow court orders requiring vaccination
Declining to fill a prescription for antibiotics when their daughter had a bilateral ear infection
Initially refusing formula supplementation despite weight concerns

The court concluded Husband’s reluctance to immediately approve the frenectomy was less problematic than Wife’s pattern of withholding recommended care.

Equitable Distribution: The Challenges of Brief Cohabitation
The parties lived together for only seven months of their marriage, creating unique challenges for equitable distribution. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded several account valuations:

Husband’s Vanguard Account
The family court erred by:

Using the date-of-filing value instead of the final hearing date
Failing to account for passive growth
Ignoring a $21,985 withdrawal Husband took during litigation

The court ordered equal division after proper revaluation.

French Bank Accounts
Husband maintained multiple accounts with French banks (Areva Amundi and Credit Mutuel) into which his employer deposited funds during the marriage. The confusion was compounded by:

Account statements in French
Evasive testimony from Husband
Failure to provide complete documentation
Movement of funds between accounts

The Court of Appeals ordered Husband to pay for a translator if necessary and required complete disclosure and proper valuation of all French accounts.

The Jaguar Loan
Wife loaned Husband $30,000 to purchase a Jaguar, with “car loan” written on the check’s memo line. Husband later claimed it was a gift. The appellate court found the Bank of America account through which these funds passed should be divided equally, giving Wife $17,050.50 instead of the $6,820 originally awarded.

Retirement Accounts
The court remanded both Wife’s TSP account and Edward Jones IRA for proper valuation to separate marital from non-marital portions and growth.

International Travel: The Lebanon Restriction
The family court prohibited either parent from taking the child to Lebanon, where Husband holds citizenship. The Court of Appeals affirmed this restriction, noting:

Lebanon is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction
State Department travel advisories for Lebanon
The restriction serves the child’s best interest

This was not punitive—it was protective.

Attorney’s Fees: Recognizing Complexity and Conduct
The Court of Appeals affirmed the $40,000 attorney’s fee award to Wife (less than half of what she requested) based on:

The complexity of the case
The parties’ respective financial conditions
Professional standing of counsel
Time properly devoted to the contentious litigation
Beneficial results obtained

Additionally, the court awarded Wife $4,480 in fees related to defending Husband’s amended post-trial motion, which raised new and untimely issues.

Key Takeaways for South Carolina Family Law Practitioners
1. Split Decision-Making Is Sometimes Necessary
When parents cannot co-parent effectively on any level, dividing decision-making authority by category may be the only workable solution. Courts should clearly delineate each parent’s areas of responsibility.

2. Medical Decision-Making Requires Balance
The parent who receives medical decision-making authority must actually follow medical recommendations. A history of refusing care recommended by physicians is highly problematic.

3. Electronic Communications Are Critical Evidence
The “Prebirth Message” proved devastating. Remind clients that WhatsApp messages, texts, emails, and social media posts are discoverable and can be used against them.

4. Date-of-Valuation Matters in Equitable Distribution
Courts must account for:

Passive growth or decline in accounts
Withdrawals during litigation
The difference between marital and non-marital portions
Post-filing appreciation or depreciation

5. Financial Disclosure Must Be Complete and Candid
Husband’s evasive testimony and failure to provide complete documentation about his French accounts resulted in orders that he pay for translation services and provide full disclosure. Hidden accounts and incomplete financial information will backfire.

6. International Custody Concerns Are Valid
Courts may restrict travel to countries that are not Hague Convention signatories, particularly when one parent holds citizenship there. This is not discrimination—it’s protecting the child’s best interest.

7. Co-Parenting Counseling Can’t Fix Everything
Despite co-parenting counseling with a licensed professional, these parents remained unable to effectively co-parent. Sometimes the conflict is simply too entrenched.

The Human Cost
Perhaps the most tragic aspect of Abbas-Ghaleb is that both parents clearly love their daughter, yet their inability to communicate and compromise has created ongoing conflict that will affect their child for years to come.
The Court of Appeals concluded with a plea: “We urge these parties to prioritize the best interests of their daughter as their paramount concern in seeking to more courteously co-parent her.”

Conclusion
Abbas-Ghaleb v. Ghaleb serves as a cautionary tale about what happens when parents cannot move beyond their own conflict to focus on their child’s needs. For family law practitioners in South Carolina, it provides valuable guidance on:

Allocating decision-making authority in high-conflict cases
Properly valuing and apportioning marital assets
Addressing international travel concerns
Awarding attorney’s fees in complex litigation

Most importantly, it reminds us that while legal solutions can address custody schedules and property division, they cannot heal broken communication or teach parents to cooperate. That work must come from the parents themselves—hopefully with support from counselors, mediators, and time.
For parents navigating divorce, the lesson is clear: your children are watching, listening, and learning from how you treat each other. Make it count.

This blog post discusses Abbas-Ghaleb v. Ghaleb, 444 S.C. 245, 907 S.E.2d 105 (Ct. App. 2024). This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are facing custody or divorce issues in South Carolina, contact an experienced family law attorney.

By Suzanne Klok|2025-11-12T16:49:05+00:00November 30th, 2024|Child Custody, Family Law|Comments Off on When Parents Can’t Agree

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: Suzanne Klok

Related Posts

What to Wear to South Carolina Family Court Hearings

South Carolina Rule 21 Updates 2025: Temporary Hearings

Passport Provisions in SC Custody Orders: Complete Guide for Parents

Answering Discovery in SC Family Court: What You Must Know

Supreme Court Clarifies “Timely” Rule 59(e) Motions in Family Court

When Parents Can’t Agree: Lessons from a Contentious South Carolina Custody Case
Abbas-Ghaleb v. Ghaleb (2024) stands as a sobering reminder of how parental conflict can escalate when communication breaks down entirely. The South Carolina Court of Appeals’ recent decision in this Aiken County case offers important guidance on custody determinations, decision-making authority, and equitable distribution in high-conflict divorces.

The Background: A Marriage That Never Found Its Footing
Khalil Abbas-Ghaleb and Anna Ghaleb’s brief marriage was marked by separation from the start. Despite marrying in June 2017, they lived apart for most of their marriage—he working as an advisory scientist in Aiken, she serving as a military linguist in the Washington, D.C. area. When Anna became pregnant and left the military to move to Aiken, the couple’s fundamental incompatibility became impossible to ignore.

The warning signs appeared early. On their wedding night, disagreements began. On their honeymoon, divorce was already being discussed. What followed was a marriage characterized by control, surveillance, and an inability to compromise on even the most basic parenting decisions.

The Custody Battle: When Every Decision Becomes a Battlefield
A Litany of Disagreements
The parties’ disputes over their daughter’s care were extraordinary in their scope and intensity. They disagreed about:

Medical decisions (vaccinations, vitamin K shots, antibiotics)
Feeding methods (breastfeeding techniques, formula supplementation, solid foods)
Healthcare providers (frenectomy procedures, chiropractor visits)
Daily care routines (bath temperatures, diaper changes, swaddle tightness)
Safety monitoring (video surveillance of the child)
Religious upbringing and baptism
Travel permissions

These weren’t merely different parenting philosophies—they represented a complete breakdown in the ability to co-parent.

The Prebirth Message: A Smoking Gun
Perhaps the most damaging evidence was a WhatsApp message Husband sent before their daughter’s birth, offering Wife an ultimatum: live by his rules or receive no support. The family court judge called it “a most unbelievable piece of evidence” showing “complete inflexibility and a total lack of emotional connection” with the child. The Court of Appeals noted that while these words were likely “designed to hurt Wife,” they revealed concerning rigidity and control issues.

The Court’s Decision on Custody
The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s award of primary custody to Wife, noting several key factors:

1. Primary caretaker status: Wife had been the stay-at-home parent and primary caretaker
2. Controlling behavior: Husband exhibited a “my way or no way” tendency acknowledged even by his friends and colleagues
3. Expert opinions: Dr. Harari’s psychological evaluation raised concerns about Husband’s rigid, authoritarian parenting style
4. Medical decision-making patterns: Wife’s history of refusing recommended medical care was problematic

However, the court recognized both parents love their daughter and found no evidence of physical abuse.

Split Decision-Making Authority: An Innovative Solution
Given the parents’ complete inability to agree on anything, the family court took the unusual step of dividing decision-making authority by category:

Wife: Primary physical custody and all non-medical decision-making authority
Husband: Medical decision-making authority (with warnings about abuse of this authority)

This split was necessary because, as expert witnesses testified, these parents simply cannot effectively co-parent. The Court of Appeals affirmed this arrangement, calling it “not only the best way to relieve some of the conflict between these parties while serving [their daughter’s] best interests, it is the logical choice in this unfortunate situation.”

Medical Decision-Making: A Sword That Cuts Both Ways
The award of medical decision-making to Husband was noteworthy given his controlling tendencies. However, Wife’s track record was more concerning:

Refusing vitamin K shots and prophylactic eye treatment at birth
Delaying vaccinations despite medical recommendations
Refusing to follow court orders requiring vaccination
Declining to fill a prescription for antibiotics when their daughter had a bilateral ear infection
Initially refusing formula supplementation despite weight concerns

The court concluded Husband’s reluctance to immediately approve the frenectomy was less problematic than Wife’s pattern of withholding recommended care.

Equitable Distribution: The Challenges of Brief Cohabitation
The parties lived together for only seven months of their marriage, creating unique challenges for equitable distribution. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded several account valuations:

Husband’s Vanguard Account
The family court erred by:

Using the date-of-filing value instead of the final hearing date
Failing to account for passive growth
Ignoring a $21,985 withdrawal Husband took during litigation

The court ordered equal division after proper revaluation.

French Bank Accounts
Husband maintained multiple accounts with French banks (Areva Amundi and Credit Mutuel) into which his employer deposited funds during the marriage. The confusion was compounded by:

Account statements in French
Evasive testimony from Husband
Failure to provide complete documentation
Movement of funds between accounts

The Court of Appeals ordered Husband to pay for a translator if necessary and required complete disclosure and proper valuation of all French accounts.

The Jaguar Loan
Wife loaned Husband $30,000 to purchase a Jaguar, with “car loan” written on the check’s memo line. Husband later claimed it was a gift. The appellate court found the Bank of America account through which these funds passed should be divided equally, giving Wife $17,050.50 instead of the $6,820 originally awarded.

Retirement Accounts
The court remanded both Wife’s TSP account and Edward Jones IRA for proper valuation to separate marital from non-marital portions and growth.

International Travel: The Lebanon Restriction
The family court prohibited either parent from taking the child to Lebanon, where Husband holds citizenship. The Court of Appeals affirmed this restriction, noting:

Lebanon is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction
State Department travel advisories for Lebanon
The restriction serves the child’s best interest

This was not punitive—it was protective.

Attorney’s Fees: Recognizing Complexity and Conduct
The Court of Appeals affirmed the $40,000 attorney’s fee award to Wife (less than half of what she requested) based on:

The complexity of the case
The parties’ respective financial conditions
Professional standing of counsel
Time properly devoted to the contentious litigation
Beneficial results obtained

Additionally, the court awarded Wife $4,480 in fees related to defending Husband’s amended post-trial motion, which raised new and untimely issues.

Key Takeaways for South Carolina Family Law Practitioners
1. Split Decision-Making Is Sometimes Necessary
When parents cannot co-parent effectively on any level, dividing decision-making authority by category may be the only workable solution. Courts should clearly delineate each parent’s areas of responsibility.

2. Medical Decision-Making Requires Balance
The parent who receives medical decision-making authority must actually follow medical recommendations. A history of refusing care recommended by physicians is highly problematic.

3. Electronic Communications Are Critical Evidence
The “Prebirth Message” proved devastating. Remind clients that WhatsApp messages, texts, emails, and social media posts are discoverable and can be used against them.

4. Date-of-Valuation Matters in Equitable Distribution
Courts must account for:

Passive growth or decline in accounts
Withdrawals during litigation
The difference between marital and non-marital portions
Post-filing appreciation or depreciation

5. Financial Disclosure Must Be Complete and Candid
Husband’s evasive testimony and failure to provide complete documentation about his French accounts resulted in orders that he pay for translation services and provide full disclosure. Hidden accounts and incomplete financial information will backfire.

6. International Custody Concerns Are Valid
Courts may restrict travel to countries that are not Hague Convention signatories, particularly when one parent holds citizenship there. This is not discrimination—it’s protecting the child’s best interest.

7. Co-Parenting Counseling Can’t Fix Everything
Despite co-parenting counseling with a licensed professional, these parents remained unable to effectively co-parent. Sometimes the conflict is simply too entrenched.

The Human Cost
Perhaps the most tragic aspect of Abbas-Ghaleb is that both parents clearly love their daughter, yet their inability to communicate and compromise has created ongoing conflict that will affect their child for years to come.
The Court of Appeals concluded with a plea: “We urge these parties to prioritize the best interests of their daughter as their paramount concern in seeking to more courteously co-parent her.”

Conclusion
Abbas-Ghaleb v. Ghaleb serves as a cautionary tale about what happens when parents cannot move beyond their own conflict to focus on their child’s needs. For family law practitioners in South Carolina, it provides valuable guidance on:

Allocating decision-making authority in high-conflict cases
Properly valuing and apportioning marital assets
Addressing international travel concerns
Awarding attorney’s fees in complex litigation

Most importantly, it reminds us that while legal solutions can address custody schedules and property division, they cannot heal broken communication or teach parents to cooperate. That work must come from the parents themselves—hopefully with support from counselors, mediators, and time.
For parents navigating divorce, the lesson is clear: your children are watching, listening, and learning from how you treat each other. Make it count.

This blog post discusses Abbas-Ghaleb v. Ghaleb, 444 S.C. 245, 907 S.E.2d 105 (Ct. App. 2024). This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are facing custody or divorce issues in South Carolina, contact an experienced family law attorney.