SCDSS v. T.G.

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina
Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

T.G., L.N., R.M.,
M.E., D.G., and L.G., Defendants, 

Of whom T.G. is  Appellant.

In the Interest of:  T.N. 12-04-97, T.N. 05-18-99, T.G. 01-13-01,
T.M. 05-23-02, T.E. 03-15-05, Minors Under the Age of 18.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 James F. Fraley, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-089

Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed
February 8, 2008   

AFFIRMED

W. Wallace Culp, III, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Deborah Murdock, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: T.G.
appeals the family court’s denial of counsel’s request for a continuance of a permanency
planning proceeding from which T.G. was absent.  We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authority:  S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v.
Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 51, 413 S.E.2d 835, 838 (1992) (“The granting or
denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and
is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the
record.”).[1]    

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON,
SHORT, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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