CourtListener 10148703•SCDSS v. Goodwin
Testo completo
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.
Mashana Goodwin, Nathaniel Davis, and James
Williams, Defendants,
Of Whom James Williams is the Appellant.
In the interest of a minor child under the age of eighteen.
Appellate Case No. 2014-000573
Appeal From Spartanburg County
Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-485
Submitted December 10, 2014 – Filed December 29, 2014
AFFIRMED
Richard Whitney Allen, of The Law Offices of Richard
W. Allen, L.L.C., of Laurens, for Appellant.
Deborah Murdock, of Murdock Law Firm, LLC, of
Mauldin, for Respondent.
Michael Todd Thigpen, of Spartanburg, for the Guardian
ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: James Williams appeals the family court's final order terminating
his parental rights [TPR] to his minor child. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570
(2010 & Supp. 2013). 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 that warrant briefing.1
Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and grant counsel's petition to be
relieved.
AFFIRMED.2
FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We find the family court properly terminated Williams's parental rights based on
clear and convincing evidence he willfully failed to support and willfully failed to
visit his minor child and TPR was in the minor child's best interest. See Doe v.
Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 581, 578 S.E.2d 733, 736 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Having
found one ground on which the family court properly terminated [the parent]'s
parental rights, we need only determine that [TPR] is in [the child]'s best interests
to affirm the family court's termination." (emphasis added)).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.