SCDSS v. Catherine Maness

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.

Catherine Maness, Tedric Valentine, and John Doe,
Defendants,

Of whom Catherine Maness is the Appellant

and

Tedric Valentine is a Respondent.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2024-000842

Appeal From Greenville County
Thomas T. Hodges, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-210
Submitted June 6, 2025 – Filed June 26, 2025

AFFIRMED

Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks,
Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Kristine Jaye Amin, of Amin Family Law & Mediation
LLC, of Greenville, as the Guardian ad Litem for
Appellant.

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

Amanda Stiles, of the South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Greenville, for Respondent South
Carolina Department of Social Services.

Don J. Stevenson, of Don J. Stevenson, Attorney at Law,
of Greenville, for the Guardian ad Litem for the minor
children.

PER CURIAM: Catherine Maness appeals the family court's final order finding
she physically abused and physically neglected her minor child (Child) and
terminating her parental rights to Child and another of her minor children. 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.
§ 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2024). 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 Maness's counsel.

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

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