SCDSS v. Nelson

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.

Corey M. Nelson, Appellant.

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

Appellate Case No. 2024-000816

Appeal From Richland County
M. Scott Rankin, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-413
Submitted December 4, 2024 – Filed December 6, 2024

AFFIRMED

Nancy Carol Fennell, of Irmo, for Appellant.

Becky M. Farmer, of South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Cecelia Ann Clark-Donato, of Richland County CASA,
of Columbia, for the Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Corey M. Nelson appeals a permanency planning order
concerning her two minor children (Children) in which the family court awarded
permanent custody of Child 1 to her father (Father) and stepmother (Stepmother);
dismissed Child 1, Father, and Stepmother from the case; ordered the South
Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) to maintain custody of Child 2
while pursing relative placement for her; ordered Father, Stepmother, and DSS to
supervise all visitation between Mother and Children; and allowed DSS to forego
further reunification efforts. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700 (Supp. 2024)
(pertaining to permanency planning); § 63-7-1700(G)(1) (stating the family court
may award custody to a fit and willing relative when a child cannot safely be
returned to his or her parents and termination of parental rights is not in the child's
best interest); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640(C) (Supp. 2024) (setting forth
situations in which 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), we find no meritorious issues warrant briefing.1
Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling.

AFFIRMED.2

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and HEWITT, JJ., 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 oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.