SCDSS v. Harvley

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.

Ferris Harvley, James Bascomber, Gary Thomas, Gail
Henson, Hannah Purnell, and Brian Purnell, Defendants,

Of whom Ferris Harvley is the Appellant.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001592

Appeal From Laurens County
Joseph C. Smithdeal, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-217
Submitted June 24, 2020 – Filed July 13, 2020

AFFIRMED

Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of
Union, for Appellant.

Nathaniel B. Senn, III, of The Law Office of N.B. Senn,
LLC, of Laurens, as Guardian ad Litem for Appellant.
Rosemerry Felder-Commander, of the South Carolina
Department of Social Services, of Laurens, for
Respondent.

Marcus Wesley Meetze, of Law Office of Marcus W.
Meetze, LLC, of Simpsonville, for the Guardian ad Litem
for the minor children.

PER CURIAM: Ferris Harvley appeals the family court's order removing her
minor children from her custody, placing them in the custody of alternate
caregivers, and allowing the Department of Social Services (DSS) to forego
reasonable efforts at reunification and close its case. 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. 2019) (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 Harvley's counsel.

AFFIRMED.2

HUFF, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
See also S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, S.C. Sup. Ct. Or. dated Feb. 2, 2005
(expanding the Cauthen procedure to removal actions).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.