S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Goodwin

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

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 29, 2014

Appellate Case No. 2014-000573 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2014)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2014-000573 Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-485

12-29-2014

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent, v. Mashana Goodwin, Nathaniel Davis, and James Williams, Defendants, Of Whom James Williams is the Appellant. In the interest of a minor child under the age of eighteen.

Richard Whitney Allen, of The Law Offices of Richard W. Allen, L.L.C., of Laurens, for Appellant. Deborah Murdock, of Murdock Law Firm, LLC, of Mauldin, for Respondent. Michael Todd Thigpen, of Spartanburg, 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.

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Richard Whitney Allen, of The Law Offices of Richard W. Allen, L.L.C., of Laurens, for Appellant. Deborah Murdock, of Murdock Law Firm, LLC, of Mauldin, for Respondent. Michael Todd Thigpen, of Spartanburg, for the Guardian ad Litem. PER CURIAM: James Williams appeals the family court's final order terminating his parental rights [TPR] to his minor child. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (2010 & Supp. 2013). 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 that warrant briefing.¹ Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and grant counsel's petition to be relieved. AFFIRMED. ²

1 We find the family court properly terminated Williams's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence he willfully failed to support and willfully failed to visit his minor child and TPR was in the minor child's best interest. See Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 581, 578 S.E.2d 733, 736 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Having found one ground on which the family court properly terminated [the parent]'s parental rights, we need only determine that [TPR] is in [the child]'s best interests to affirm the family court's termination." (emphasis added)).

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

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.