Opinion
2020-UP-217
07-13-2020
South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent, v. Ferris Harvley, James Bascomber, Gary Thomas, Gail Henson, Hannah Purnell, and Brian Purnell, Defendants, Of whom Ferris Harvley is the Appellant. In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2019-001592
Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of Union, for Appellant. Nathaniel B. Senn, III, of The Law Office of N.B. Senn, LLC, of Laurens, as Guardian ad Litem 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 for the minor children.
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.
Submitted June 24, 2020
Appeal From Laurens County Joseph C. Smithdeal, Family Court Judge
Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of Union, for Appellant.
Nathaniel B. Senn, III, of The Law Office of N.B. Senn, LLC, of Laurens, as Guardian ad Litem 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 for the minor children.
PER CURIAM.
Ferris Harvley appeals the family court's order removing her minor children from her custody, placing them in the custody of alternate caregivers, and allowing the Department of Social Services (DSS) to forego reasonable efforts at reunification and close its 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. 2019) (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), we find no meritorious issues warrant briefing. Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and relieve Harvley's counsel.
See also S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, SC Sup. Ct. Or. dated Feb. 2, 2005 (expanding the Cauthen procedure to removal actions).
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
HUFF, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.