SCDSS v. Fuller ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Jennifer Fuller, Roger Ryea, and Bruce Fuller,
    Defendants,
    Of whom Jennifer Fuller is the Appellant.
    In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen.
    Appellate Case No. 2020-001353
    Appeal From Abbeville County
    Mindy W. Zimmerman, Family Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-142
    Submitted April 23, 2021 – Filed April 27, 2021
    AFFIRMED
    Heather Vry Scalzo, of Byford & Scalzo, LLC, of
    Greenville, for Appellant.
    Cedric Antwon Cunningham, of Kinlaw and
    Cunningham, LLC, of Greenville; and Sarah M.
    Coldiron, of the South Carolina Department of Social
    Services, of Newberry, both for Respondent.
    Carson McCurry Henderson, of The Henderson Law
    Firm, PC, of Greenwood, for the Guardian ad Litem.
    PER CURIAM: Jennifer Fuller appeals the family court's order removing her
    minor child from her custody, finding she physically neglected her minor child,
    ordering her to complete a placement plan, granting Roger Ryea custody of her
    minor child, and ordering a review hearing in six months. 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). 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),1 we find no meritorious
    issues warrant briefing. Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and
    relieve Fuller's counsel.
    AFFIRMED.2
    WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.
    1
    See also S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, S.C. 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").
    2
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2021-UP-142

Filed Date: 4/27/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024