SCDSS v. Mills

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.

Cassandra Mills, Anthony Hudson, Gerald Monroe, and
Anetha Hudson, Defendants,

Of whom Cassandra Mills is the Appellant.

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

Appellate Case No. 2023-001029

Appeal From Florence County
FitzLee H. McEachin, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-043
Submitted January 24, 2024 – Filed February 1, 2024

AFFIRMED

Harry A. Hancock, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Sally Ward Peace, of Sally Ward Peace, PA, of Florence,
for Respondent.
Stuart Wesley Snow, Jr., of Snow & Bailey Law Firm,
P.A., of Florence, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Cassandra Mills appeals the family court's order removing her
minor child from her custody, finding she physically neglected the child, granting
Anetha Hudson legal and physical custody, and allowing the Department of Social
Services to forego reasonable efforts at reunification. 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. 2023) (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 Mills's counsel.

AFFIRMED.2

MCDONALD and VINSON, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., 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 argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.