SCDSS v. Chestnut

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Department of Social Services,
Respondent,

v.

Billy Nelson Chestnut and Dorothy Kay McDougal
Chestnut, Defendants,

Of Whom Dorothy Kay McDougal Chestnut is the
Appellant.

AND

Amanda Ruth Smith and Corey Brandon Smith,
Respondents,

v.

Dorothy Kay McDougal Chestnut, Billy Nelson
Chestnut, and Baby Girl, a minor under the age of four
(4) years, and South Carolina Department of Social
Services, Defendants,

Of whom Dorothy Kay McDougal Chestnut is the
Appellant.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002404
Appeal From Laurens County
John M. Rucker, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-315
Submitted May 27, 2015 – Filed June 24, 2015

AFFIRMED

Chad A. Mitchell, of The Chad Alexander Mitchell Law
Firm, LLC, of Laurens, for Appellant.

Nancy H. Bailey, of Law Office of Nancy H. Bailey, of
Florence, for Respondents Amanda Smith and Corey
Smith.

Laura Jo Bardsley Houck, of the South Carolina
Department of Social Services, of Laurens, for
Respondent South Carolina Department of Social
Services.

Elizabeth Dyal Medlin, of Medlin Law Firm, LLC, of
Laurens, for Guardian ad Litem Sheila Putnam.

Marcus Wesley Meetze, of Law Office of Marcus W.
Meetze, LLC, of Simpsonville, for Guardian ad Litem
Angela Young.

PER CURIAM: Dorothy Chestnut appeals the family court's final order
terminating her parental rights to her minor children. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-
2570 (Supp. 2014). Upon a thorough review of the record and the family court's
findings of facts and conclusions of law pursuant to Ex parte Cauthen, 291 S.C.
465, 354 S.E.2d 381 (1987), we find no meritorious issues that warrant briefing.
Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and relieve Chestnut's counsel.
AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.