SCDSS v. Segars

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.

Michael Richter and Emily Segars (Poling), Defendants,

v.

Julie Blalock, Intervenor/Respondent,

Of whom Emily Segars (Poling) is the Appellant

and

Michael Richter is a Respondent.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000906

Appeal From York County
Thomas Henry White, IV, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-221
Submitted June 4, 2021 – Filed June 11, 2021

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

Nathan James Sheldon, of The Law Office of Nathan J.
Sheldon, LLC, of Rock Hill, for Respondent Michael
Richter.

Audrey Ann Butler, of Butler & Church Law, LLC, of
Rock Hill, for Respondent Julie Blalock.

Andrew Troy Potter, of Anderson, and R. Chadwick
Smith, of South Carolina Department of Social Services,
of Rock Hill, both for Respondent.

Rebecca T. McNerney, of Waxhaw, North Carolina, for
the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Emily Segars appeals the family court's final order finding
Segars's home was not safe for reunification, an extension of reunification could
not be granted, and a permanent plan of termination of parental rights and adoption
was in the children's best interests. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700 (Supp. 2020).
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.

AFFIRMED.2

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and HILL, 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.