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.
In The Court of Appeals
South Carolina Department of Social Services, Appellant,
Nathaniel Roberts, Respondent.
Robert S. Armstrong, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-397
Submitted June 1, 2005 – Filed June 21, 2005
Paul Fredrick LeBarron, of
Charleston, for Appellant.
Nathaniel Roberts, of
Fairfax, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The South Carolina Department of Social Services appeals the family court’s order requiring the child support arrearage of Nathaniel Roberts be recalculated based upon the dates his children reached the age of eighteen. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authority: Elam v. South Carolina Dep’t Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 23-24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 779-80 (2004) (Issues and arguments are preserved for appellate review only when they are raised to and ruled on by the lower court; A party must file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review.).
GOOLSBY, HUFF, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.