SCDSS v. Joanie Greene

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.

Joanie Greene, Anthony Greene, and John Doe,
Defendants,

of whom Joanie Greene is the Appellant.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2025-000640

Appeal From Greenville County
Timothy E. Madden, Family Court Judge,

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-320
Submitted September 8, 2025 – Filed September 17, 2025

AFFIRMED

Harry A. Hancock, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Kristine Jaye Amin, of Amin Family Law & Mediation
LLC, of Greenville, as the Guardian ad Litem for
Appellant.
Amanda Stiles, of the South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Megan Goodwin Burke, of Greenville, for the Guardians
ad Litem for the minor children.

PER CURIAM: Joanie Greene appeals the family court's final order finding she
physically neglected her minor child (Child 2), authorizing the Department of
Social Services (DSS) to forego reasonable efforts to reunify her with Child 2,
approving a permanent plan of adoption, and terminating her parental rights to her
minor children. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1660(E) (2010) (setting forth findings
a family court must make when removing a child from the custody of a parent);
S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640(C)(1)(b) (Supp. 2024) ("The family court may
authorize [DSS] to terminate or forego reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify a
family . . . when the family court determines . . . the parent has subjected the child
or another child while residing in the parent's domicile to . . . severe or repeated
neglect . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700(C) (Supp. 2024) ("At the permanency
planning hearing, the court shall approve a plan for achieving permanence for the
child . . . . [A] pending termination of parental rights [TPR] action may be
consolidated with a contested permanency planning hearing."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2024) (stating the family court may order TPR upon finding a
statutory ground for TPR is met and TPR is in the child's best interest). 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. Accordingly, we affirm the
family court's ruling and relieve Greene's counsel.

AFFIRMED. 1

MCDONALD, HEWITT, and TURNER, JJ., concur.

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