South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Wright

Full title: South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent, v. Maranda…

Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 28, 2020

2020-UP-295 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2020)

Opinion

2020-UP-295

10-28-2020

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent, v. Maranda Wright, Daniel King, and Steven Sherman, Defendants, Of whom Maranda Wright is the Appellant and Daniel King and Steven Sherman are Respondents. In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2020-000094

Robert Mills Ariail, Jr., of The Law Office of R. Mills Ariail, Jr. of Greenville, for Appellant. Andrew Troy Potter, of Anderson, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services. Mary Elizabeth Parrilla, of The Parrilla Law Firm, LLC of Anderson, for Respondent Daniel King. Thomas Harper Collins, of Harper Collins LLC, of Anderson, and Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks, Attorney at Law, of Greenville, both for Respondent Steven Sherman. Kimberly Welchel Pease, of Kimberly R. Welchel, Attorney at Law, of Seneca, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

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 October 23, 2020

Appeal From Oconee County Edgar H. Long, Jr., Family Court Judge.

Robert Mills Ariail, Jr., of The Law Office of R. Mills Ariail, Jr. of Greenville, for Appellant.

Andrew Troy Potter, of Anderson, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services.

Mary Elizabeth Parrilla, of The Parrilla Law Firm, LLC of Anderson, for Respondent Daniel King.

Thomas Harper Collins, of Harper Collins LLC, of Anderson, and Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks, Attorney at Law, of Greenville, both for Respondent Steven Sherman.

Kimberly Welchel Pease, of Kimberly R. Welchel, Attorney at Law, of Seneca, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

Maranda Wright appeals the family court's final order terminating her parental rights to her minor children. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2019). 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 Wright's counsel.

AFFIRMED. ¹

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

THOMAS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.