South Carolina Department of Social Services v. White

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.

Trilicia White and Willie Miller, Defendants,

Of Whom Trilicia White is the Appellant,

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

Appellate Case No. 2014-001782

Appeal From York County
Thomas Henry White, IV, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-281
Submitted April 6, 2015 – Filed June 5, 2015
Withdrawn, Substituted, and Refiled June 24, 2015

AFFIRMED

Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of
Union, for Appellant.

David E. Simpson, of the South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.
Laura Kaiser Anderson, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for
the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Trilicia White appeals the family court's finding that she
physically neglected her two-year-old child, arguing the family court erred in
finding (1) she physically neglected the child, (2) she placed the child at a
substantial risk of injury, and (3) the South Carolina Department of Social Services
(DSS) made reasonable efforts to eliminate the need to remove the child. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in finding White physically neglected the
child and placed the child at a substantial risk of injury: Simmons v. Simmons, 392
S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, [an
appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392
S.C. 381, 384, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) ("[An] appellate court has jurisdiction
to find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence.
However, this broad scope of review does not require [the appellate court] to
disregard the findings of the family court." (internal quotation marks omitted));
S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-20(4)(a) (2010) (providing child abuse or neglect occurs
when a child's parent "engages in acts or omissions which present a substantial risk
of physical or mental injury to the child").

2. As to whether DSS made reasonable efforts to eliminate the need to remove the
child: Seabrook v. Knox, 369 S.C. 191, 197, 631 S.E.2d 907, 910 (2006) (holding
an appellate court will not decide a moot question and explaining "[a] moot case
exists where a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect
upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of
effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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