SCDSS v. Diaz-Duran

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.

Rosalinda Obregon-Mejia, Miguel Diaz-Duran, et al,
Defendants,

v.

Dulce Navarrete, Third-Party Intervenor, Respondent,

and

Jane Doe and John Doe, Fourth-Party Intervenors,
Respondents,

Of whom Miguel Diaz-Duran is the Appellant,

and

Rosalinda Obregon-Mejia is a Respondent.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002063

Appeal From Anderson County
Karen F. Ballenger, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-459
Submitted November 6, 2018 – Filed December 6, 2018

AFFIRMED

Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of
Union, for Appellant.

Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks,
Attorney at Law, of Greenville, as Guardian ad Litem for
Appellant.

Kathleen J. Hodges, of Anderson, for South Carolina
Department of Social Services.

Thomas Harper Collins, of Harper Collins LLC, of
Anderson, for Rosalinda Obregon-Mejia.

William E. Phillips, of Anderson, as Guardian ad Litem
for Obregon-Mejia.

Samuel Johnston Briggs, of Briggs Law Firm, of
Greenville, for Dulce Navarrete.

Betsy Buchanan Tanner, of Anderson Law Firm, LLC, of
Fountain Inn, for Jane Doe and John Doe.

John Marshall Swails, Jr., of Greenville, for the Guardian
ad Litem for the minor children.

PER CURIAM: Miguel Diaz-Duran appeals the family court's final order
terminating his parental rights to his minor children. See S.C. Code Ann.
§ 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2018). Upon a thorough review of the record and the family
court's findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Ex parte Cauthen, 291
S.C. 465, 354 S.E.2d 381 (1987), we find no meritorious issues warrant briefing.
Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and relieve Diaz-Duran's counsel.
AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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