S.C. 232, 239, 495 S.E.2d 236, 240 (Ct. App. 1997) (affirming a change in custody to a father when “Mother has exhibited an unwillingness to facilitate the child’s visitation with Father”). We recognize Father initially yielded to Children’s wishes and allowed for more flexibility in deciding when to visit with him. However, as the email exchanges demonstrate, Mother continued to refuse or thwart visitation efforts even after Father sought to enforce the agreement because weeks would pass without him seeing Children. The email exchanges directly contradict Mother’s testimony that she was unaware Father sought the visitation allotted in the order. Moreover, Mother continued these actions after the contempt hearing began. See Schadel v. Schadel, 268 S.C. 50, 57, 232 S.E.2d 17, 20 (1977) (<HOLDING>). We find the instant case is distinguishable
holding that the trial court erred in failing to address holiday visitation holding evidence insufficient to terminate mothers parental rights under section c because mother made arrangements for adequate support of children evidence showed mother left children with father who maintained steady employment and adequately supported children mother knew that father would provide adequate support and mother left children pursuant to agreed divorce decree holding the family court erred in failing to hold a mother in contempt after she refused visitation of the father with their children in contravention of family court orders holding that the family court is required to consider all relevant factors in determining alimony holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family courts findings and conclusions