From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grooms v. Hopkins

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 3, 2022
No. 2022-UP-371 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2022)

Opinion

2022-UP-371 Appellate Case 2020-001590

10-03-2022

Brooke Ashleigh Grooms and Eric Wayne Grooms, Respondents, v. Cheryl Turner Hopkins and Fred Hopkins, Defendants, Of whom Fred Hopkins is the Appellant.

Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks, Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant. Brooke Chapman Evans, of Evans &Turnblad, LLC, of Florence, for Respondents. Kathryn F. Free, of Kathryn F. Free, Attorney at Law, of Elgin, as Guardian ad Litem.


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 September 21, 2022

Appeal From Florence County Huntley S. Crouch, Family Court Judge

Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks, Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Brooke Chapman Evans, of Evans &Turnblad, LLC, of Florence, for Respondents.

Kathryn F. Free, of Kathryn F. Free, Attorney at Law, of Elgin, as Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM

Fred Hopkins appeals the family court's final order finding Brook and Eric Grooms the de facto custodians and psychological parents of Child, granting them sole custody of Child, ordering Hopkins to have no contact with Child, and changing Child's last name. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-60(C) (Supp. 2021) ("The family court may grant . . . custody of a child to the de facto custodian if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child's natural parents are unfit or that other compelling circumstances exist."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-49-10(B) (Supp. 2021) ("A parent who desires to change the name of his minor child may petition, in writing, a family court judge in the appropriate circuit ...."). 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 Hopkin's counsel.

See also S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, SC 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").

AFFIRMED.

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

WILLIAMS, C.J, THOMAS, J, and LOCKEMY AJ, concur


Summaries of

Grooms v. Hopkins

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 3, 2022
No. 2022-UP-371 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Grooms v. Hopkins

Case Details

Full title:Brooke Ashleigh Grooms and Eric Wayne Grooms, Respondents, v. Cheryl…

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 3, 2022

Citations

No. 2022-UP-371 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2022)