SCDSS v. Ashley Brown

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.

Brenda Brown (Dismissed), Ashley Brown, Juan Nelson,
Alvin McNeal (Dismissed), and Kamren Tillis,
Defendants,

Of whom Ashley Brown is the Appellant.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000891

Appeal From Charleston County
Daniel E. Martin, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-179
Submitted April 14, 2022 – Filed April 21, 2022

AFFIRMED

Heather Vry Scalzo, of Byford & Scalzo, LLC, of
Greenville, for Appellant.

Regina T. Parvin, of South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Charleston, for Respondent.
Alwyn Taylor Silver, of Silver Law Firm, LLC, of
Georgetown, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Ashley Brown appeals the family court's order removing her
minor children from her custody, finding she physically abused and physically
neglected her minor children, restraining her from contacting her minor children,
and allowing the Department of Social Services (DSS) to forego reasonable efforts
at reunification. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1660(E) (2010) (setting forth findings
a family court must make when removing children from the custody of their
parents); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640(C) (Supp. 2021) (setting forth situations
when a family court may authorize DSS to forego reasonable efforts at family
reunification). 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),1 we find no meritorious issues warrant briefing.
Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and relieve Brown's counsel.

AFFIRMED.2

GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1
See also S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Feb. 2,
2005 (expanding the Cauthen procedure to situations when "an indigent person
appeals from an order imposing other measures short of termination of parental
rights").
2
We decide this case without argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.