SCDSS v. Jacqueline C.

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.

Jacqueline C.,
James H., and Martin C., Defendants,

Of whom
Jacqueline C. is the Appellant.

In the interest
of a minor child under the age of 18.

Appeal From York County

Henry T. Woods, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-173 

Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed March 9,
2012

AFFIRMED

Matthew Jeffrey Lester, of Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant.

David E. Simpson, of Rock Hill, for
Respondent.

Rosalee Davis, of Lancaster, for Guardian ad
Litem.

PER CURIAM:  Jacqueline
C. (Mother) appeals from the family court's final order granting termination of
parental rights (TPR) to her minor child (Child), arguing the family court
erred in: (1) terminating parental rights when the Department of Social
Services' (DSS) complaint did not contain sufficient underlying factual
circumstances to support the grounds of TPR; (2) applying a recently amended
statute to prevent extension of a permanency plan longer than eighteen months
after Child entered foster care; (3) granting TPR on the fifteen of twenty-two
months ground and the ground that Child was in foster care for eighteen months
when these grounds were not pled or in existence at the time of DSS's
complaint; and (4) failing to provide the notice required by section
63-7-1680(G) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011).  We affirm.[1] 

As to Mother's
issue regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings: "A petition for [TPR] must set forth the: . . .
(6) grounds on which [TPR] are sought and the underlying factual
circumstances."  S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2540(6) (2010).  Here, the TPR
complaint contains sufficient factual pleadings to apprise Mother of the action
pending against her.  Moreover, this issue was never raised to the family
court.  Accordingly, this argument is without merit. 

As to Mother's
issue regarding the extension of a
permanency plan longer than eighteen months: If at the permanency plan hearing,
the family court determines custody of the child should not yet be returned, "but
that the child may be returned to the parent within a specified reasonable time
not to exceed eighteen months after the child was placed in foster care, the
court may order an extension of the [placement] plan."  S.C. Code Ann. §
63-7-1700(F) (Supp. 2011).  The amended statute would apply because it was
effective at the time of the TPR hearing.  This section restricts the family
court from extending a plan to reunify the parents with Child past a period of
eighteen months.  Because extending a placement plan of reunification would
exceed this limit, the family court did not err.  Accordingly, we affirm.

As to Mother's
issue regarding the failure to provide
the notice required by statute: "The court shall include in its order and
shall advise defendants on the record that failure to remedy the conditions
that caused the removal within six months, may result in termination of
parental rights . . . ."  S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1680(G) (Supp. 2011). 
Here, the family court followed the law at the time it adopted the placement
plan, and Mother received warning that failure to comply could result in TPR. 
Accordingly, this issue is without merit.

As to Mother's
remaining issues: Mother failed to
challenge two of the statutory grounds for TPR and the finding that TPR was in
Child's best interest.  Therefore, these findings are the law of the case.  See Transp. Ins. Co. & Flagstar Corp. v. S.C. Second Injury Fund, 389
S.C. 422, 431, 699 S.E.2d 687, 691 (2010) ("An unappealed ruling is the law
of the case and requires affirmance."); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570
(Supp. 2011) (stating the family court may order TPR upon finding one or more
of eleven statutory grounds is satisfied and also finding TPR is in the best
interest of the child).  Moreover, the record supports terminating Mother's
parental rights on the grounds set forth in the family court's order and the
finding that TPR is in Child's best interest.

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
rule 215, SCACR.