SCDSS v. Mendy Evans

CourtListener 10152027Scctapp18.10.2021

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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.

Mendy Evans, Michael Evans, and Chiniko McCall,
Defendants,

Of whom Mendy Evans is the Appellant.

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

Appellate Case No. 2021-000083

Appeal From Chesterfield County
Michael S. Holt, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-357
Submitted October 15, 2021 – Filed October 18, 2021

AFFIRMED

Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks,
Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Cody Tarlton Mitchell, Lucas Warr & White, of
Hartsville, as the Guardian ad Litem for Appellant.
Tracy L. Bomar-Howze, of The Howze Law Firm, of
Rock Hill; and Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, both
for Respondent.

C. Heath Ruffner, of McLeod & Ruffner, of Cheraw, for
the Guardian ad Litem for the child.

PER CURIAM: Mendy Evans appeals the family court's final order that found
her home was not safe for reunification, granted custody of her minor child with a
relative, and allowed the Department of Social Services to close its case and forego
providing further services. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700 (Supp. 2020); S.C.
Code Ann. § 63-7-1640 (Supp. 2020). 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
Mendy's counsel.

AFFIRMED. 2

KONDUROS, HILL, and HEWITT, 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.

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.