SCDSS v. Shealy

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.

Natasha Shealy, Vernon L. Smith, Margaret Smith, and
Thomas Smith, Defendants,

Of whom Natasha Shealy is the Appellant.

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

Appellate Case No. 2020-000096

Appeal From Laurens County
Mindy W. Zimmerman, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-251
Submitted August 13, 2020 – Filed August 21, 2020

AFFIRMED

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

PER CURIAM: Natasha Shealy (Mother) appeals the family court's judicial
review order that placed custody of her minor child (Child) with a relative; allowed
the Department of Social Services to close its case and forego providing further
services; permitted Mother visitation with Child when Child's therapist
recommended it; and instructed Mother, Child, and their therapists to work on
Mother and Child's relationship. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700 (Supp. 2019);
S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640 (Supp. 2019). 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
Mother's counsel.

AFFIRMED.2

THOMAS, HILL, 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.