SCDSS v. Shawna O.

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina
Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Shawna O. and
David S., Appellants.

In
the interests of four minor children under the age of 18.

Appeal From Aiken County

Peter R. Nuessle, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-145

Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 17,
2009   

APPEAL DISMISSED

A. Shane Massey, of Aiken, and Charles C. Mayers, of Augusta, for
Appellants.

Amanda F. Whittle, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM: Shawna O.
(Mother) and David S. (Father) appeal from the family court's order of August
6, 2007, requiring them to comply with the terms of a South Carolina Department
of Social Services (DSS) Treatment Plan.  On appeal, Mother and Father argued
the family court erred in finding their four minor children (1) were neglected
or abused, and (2) could not be protected from further harm without
intervention.  We find a subsequent order of the family court has rendered
Mother's and Father's appeal moot. Accordingly, we dismiss their appeal.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND

Initially, the attorneys for Mother and Father
submitted affidavits stating a review of the hearing transcript demonstrated
their appeals were without merit, and they asked to be relieved as counsel,
pursuant to Ex Parte Cauthen, 291 S.C. 465, 354 S.E.2d 381 (1987), and S.C.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Frederick Downer, Sr., S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated
February 2, 2005 (extending the procedure set forth in Cauthen to
situations where an indigent person appeals from an order imposing measures
short of termination of parental rights).  Thereafter, this court required
counsel to submit briefs addressing the merits of two specific issues in Mother's
and Father's appeal.  While this court was considering the briefs submitted in
this appeal, Father appealed a subsequent ruling of the family court. 

The family court's
order of July 31, 2008, found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother's
and Father's children are abused or neglected due to Father's sexual abuse of one
child and Mother's neglect of their children.  The order required Father to
have no contact with his daughters and only supervised contact with his sons
while DSS and law enforcement investigated the allegations against Mother and
Father.  Furthermore, the family court placed three of Mother's and Father's children
in DSS custody, and they now are residing in foster care.  The family court
allowed Mother to retain custody of two children under a safety plan that
prohibited Father from residing in the home with Mother and the children. 
Moreover, the family court ordered DSS to develop new Treatment Plans for
Mother and Father that specifically addressed the issues that led to the
removal of three of their children. 

LAW/ANALYSIS

“A moot case exists
where a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect upon
an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of
effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court.  If there is no actual
controversy, this Court will not decide moot or academic questions.”  Seabrook
v. Knox, 369 S.C. 191, 197, 631 S.E.2d 907, 910 (2006) (internal citations
omitted).  “A
matter becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal
effect upon [the] existing controversy.  This is true when some event occurs
making it impossible for [the] reviewing Court to grant effectual relief.”  Collins Music Co. v. IGT, 365 S.C. 544, 549, 619 S.E.2d 1, 3 (Ct. App. 2005); see also Curtis v. State,
345 S.C. 557, 549 S.E.2d 591 (2001), 535 U.S. 926 (2002) (stating a case
becomes moot when a decision, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect
upon the controversy); Waters v. S.C. Land Resources Conservation Comm’n,
321 S.C. 219, 467 S.E.2d 913 (1996) (explaining a "justiciable"
controversy is real and substantial controversy appropriate for judicial
determination).  

Our
opinion in this case would have no practical effect because the family court's
order of July 31, 2008, has mooted the issue of whether the court erred in
ordering, on August 6, 2007, that Mother and Father comply with treatment plans. 
Accordingly, Mother's and Father's appeal is

DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., CURETON, A.J., and GOOLSBY, A., concur.