SCDSS v. Jatiya Williams

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.

Jatiya Williams and Terrence Gindhart, Defendants,

and

Christian Bishop and Heather Bishop, Intervening
Parties,

Of whom Jatiya Williams is the Appellant.

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

Appellate Case No. 2024-000845

Appeal From Richland County
A. E. Morehead, III, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-020
Submitted January 17, 2025 – Filed January 24, 2025

AFFIRMED

Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks,
Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Drake Hunter Kaiser, of Reddick & Kaiser, LLC, of
Columbia, as the Guardian ad Litem for Appellant.

Becky M. Farmer, of South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Emily Turner Looney, of Northeast New Jersey Legal
Services, of Paterson, New Jersey, for Guardian ad Litem
Gayle Ricks.

Almand James Barron, of The Law Offices Of Shea And
Barron, of Columbia, as the Guardian ad Litem for the
minor child.

PER CURIAM: Jatiya Williams appeals the family court's removal order finding
she physically abused her minor child (Child), authorizing the Department of
Social Services to forego reasonable efforts to reunify her with Child, and
approving a permanent plan of adoption. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1660(E)
(2010) (setting forth findings a family court must make when removing a child
from the custody of a parent); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640(C)(6) (Supp. 2024)
("The family court may authorize [DSS] to terminate or forego reasonable efforts
to preserve or reunify a family . . . when the family court determines . . . the
parental rights of the parent to another child of the parent have been terminated
involuntarily."); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700(C) (Supp. 2024) ("At the
permanency planning hearing, the court shall approve a plan for achieving
permanence for the child . . . . [A] pending termination of parental rights action
may be consolidated with a contested permanency planning hearing."). 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. Accordingly, we affirm the
family court's ruling and relieve Williams's counsel.

AFFIRMED. 1

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

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