SCDSS v. Ice ( 2021 )

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.
Tristen Ice, Martin Robinson, Diane Osbourne, and Billy
Muse, Defendants,
Of whom Tristen Ice is the Appellant,
And Martin Robinson is a Respondent.
In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.
Appellate Case No. 2021-000653
Appeal From Dillon County
Salley Huggins McIntyre, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-451
Submitted December 9, 2021 – Filed December 16, 2021
AFFIRMED
Elizabeth Biggerstaff York, of Darlington, for Appellant.
John D. McInnis, Jr., of John D. McInnis, Jr. Attorney at
Law, of Dillon; and Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville,
both for Respondent SCDSS.
Harry A. Hancock, of Columbia, for Respondent Martin
Robinson.
Philip Bryan Atkinson, of Atkinson Law Firm, LLC, of
Florence, for the Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Tristen Ice appeals the family court's final order granting
permanent custody of her minor children to their father. See S.C. Code Ann.
§ 63-7-1700 (Supp. 2020) (providing the family court may order relative
placement as a permanent plan). 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 Ice's
counsel.1
AFFIRMED.2
LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, 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.