SCDSS v. Goodwin ( 2014 )


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.
    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.
    Appellate Case No. 2014-000573
    Appeal From Spartanburg County
    Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-485
    Submitted December 10, 2014 – Filed December 29, 2014
    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
    FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
    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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2014-UP-485

Filed Date: 12/29/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024