SCDSS v. Logan

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.

Kayce Logan, Richard Aaron, Ashley Cooper, and Chad
Cooper, Defendants,

Of whom Kayce Logan is the Appellant.

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

Appellate Case No. 2024-000495

Appeal From Darlington County
Cely Anne Brigman, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-418
Submitted December 5, 2024 – Filed December 13, 2024

AFFIRMED

John Brandt Rucker and Allyson Sue Rucker, both of
The Rucker Law Firm, LLC, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Cody Tarlton Mitchell, of Lucas, White, & Mitchell, of
Hartsville, as Guardian ad Litem for Appellant.
Tiffany Brooke Allen, of South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Hartsville, for Respondent.

Stuart Wesley Snow, Jr., of Snow & Bailey Law Firm,
P.A., of Florence, for the Guardian ad Litem for the
minor child.

PER CURIAM: Kayce Logan appeals the family court's judicial review order
granting permanent custody of her minor child to kinship caregivers, allowing the
Department of Social Services (DSS) to forego offering further reunification
services, and closing the case. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640(C) (Supp. 2024)
(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), we find no meritorious issues
warrant briefing.1 Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and relieve
Logan's counsel.

AFFIRMED.2

THOMAS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

1
See S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated February 2,
2005 (expanding the Cauthen procedure to situations in which "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.