SCDSS v. Walker

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS

PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Patrick Walker, Tim Craig, Rodney Murray, Helen and Earnest King, Edward
and Vickie Walker, Defendants,

of whom Patrick Walker is Appellant.

/In the Interest of:/Javario Ronitrawn Walker, 7 years old/Brittany
Helena Nicole King, 10 years old/Rodrekus Harva King (deceased), 13 years old/Children
under the age of 18/F

Appeal From Greenville County

 R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-033   

Submitted January 1, 2005 – January
13, 2005

AFFIRMED

Linda B. McKenzie, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Rebecca Rush Wray, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Patrick Walker appeals the termination
of his parental rights to his minor child, Javario Ronitrawn Walker.  The family
court found there was clear and convincing evidence of abuse of another child
in the home, that there was additionally clear and convincing evidence of a
history of abuse of that other child, that the other child’s death established
a substantial risk of harm to the remaining children, and due to the repeated
and severe abuse, the home could not be made safe within twelve months.  S.C.
Code Ann § 20-7-1572(1) (Supp. 2003).  The family court also found the best
interests of Javario were served by terminating Walker’s parental rights.

Pursuant to Ex parte Cauthen, 291 S.C. 465,
354 S.E.2d 381 (1987), Walker’s counsel attached to the record of the family
court proceedings an affidavit stating she reviewed the transcript and was unable
to determine any meritorious issues.  Neither DSS nor Walker filed a response
to counsel’s affidavit.

Upon reviewing the record and the family court’s
determination in its entirety, we find no meritorious issues warranting briefing. 
Accordingly, the family court’s decision is

AFFIRMED.  1

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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