SCDSS v. Timothy S. Martin

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.

Skylar Shead, Timothy Scott Martin, Sulina Wooden,
and Johnny Wooden, Defendants,

of whom Timothy Scott Martin is the Appellant

and

Skylar Shead, Sulina Wooden, and Johnny Wooden are
Respondents.

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

Appellate Case No. 2025-000641

Appeal From Edgefield County
Robert E. Newton, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-357
Submitted October 16, 2025 – Filed October 20, 2025

AFFIRMED

Nancy Carol Fennell, of Irmo, for Appellant.
Tiffany J. Lumpkin, of Lumpkin Legal Solutions, LLC,
of Columbia, for Respondent Skylar Shead.

Connie D. Breeden, of The Law Office of Connie D.
Breeden, LLC, of Columbia, as the Guardian ad Litem
for Respondent Skylar Shead.

Luke Taylor Moore, of the South Carolina Department of
Social Services, of Lexington, for Respondent South
Carolina Department of Social Services.

Johnny Wooden, of North Augusta, pro se.

Sulina Wooden, of North Augusta, pro se.

Eydie J. Tillman, of Tillman Law Firm, LLC, of
Edgefield, for the Guardian ad Litem for the minor child.

PER CURIAM: Timothy Scott Martin appeals the family court's final order
finding he physically neglected his minor child (Child), relieving the Department
of Social Services (DSS) of providing him further services, granting custody of
Child to Father's adult daughter and her husband, and closing the 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. 2025) (explaining the family court may authorize DSS to
forego reasonable efforts at reunification when the court determines that "other
circumstances exist that . . . make continuation or implementation of reasonable
efforts to preserve or reunify the family inconsistent with the permanent plan for
the child"); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700(G)(1) (Supp. 2025) (stating the family
court may award custody to a fit and willing relative when a child cannot safely be
returned to his or her parents and termination of parental rights is not in the child's
best interest). 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), we find no meritorious issues warrant briefing. 1 Accordingly,
we affirm the family court's ruling.

1
See S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Feb. 2, 2005
(expanding the Cauthen procedure to situations in which "an indigent person
AFFIRMED. 2

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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.