SCDSS v. Green

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.

Brooke Bailey and Joseph Green, Defendants,

Of whom Joseph Green is the Appellant.

In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2020-001331

Appeal From Horry County
Ronald R. Norton, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-093
Submitted March 4, 2021 – Filed March 19, 2021

AFFIRMED

Harry A. Hancock, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Michael Julius Schwartz, of Russell B. Long, PA; and
Heather Marie Moore, of Axelrod & Associates, PA,
both of Myrtle Beach, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Joseph Green appeals the family court's order removing his
minor child from his custody, finding he physically abused and physically
neglected his minor child, and allowing the Department of Social Services (DSS)
to forego reasonable efforts at reunification. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1660(E)
(2010) (setting forth findings a family court must make when removing children
from the custody of their parents); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640(C) (Supp. 2020)
(setting forth situations when a family court may authorize DSS to forego
reasonable efforts at family reunification). 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),1 we find no meritorious issues
warrant briefing. Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and relieve
Green's counsel.

AFFIRMED.2

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

1
See also S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Feb. 2,
2005 (expanding the Cauthen procedure to situations when "an indigent person
appeals from an order imposing other measures short of termination of parental
rights").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.