SCDSS v. Van Hoose ( 2006 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS 
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Jessie Van Hoose, Scotty Smith, Mitchell Jones, Andrew Landreth a/k/a Andrew Landrum, Randall J. Simmons, John Doe, and The minor child, Madison H., DOB: 10/23/03,

of whom Jessie Van Hoose is Appellant.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Family Court Judge

---

Opinion No. 2006-UP-415
Submitted December 15, 2006 – Filed December 18, 2006   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Donald E. Kamb, Jr., and Jessie Van Hoose, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Danielle M. Mitchell, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Robert A. Clark, of Greenville, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from the termination of parental rights (TPR) of Jessie Van Hoose (Mother) to her minor child.   The court found Mother’s parental rights should be terminated because: 1) the child has been harmed as defined in section 20-7-490, and because of the severity or repetition of abuse or neglect, it is not reasonably likely that the home can be made safe within twelve months; 2) Mother has failed to remedy the conditions which required removal; 3) Mother has willfully failed to visit the child for a period of six months; 4) Mother has willfully failed to support the child for a period of six months; 5) Mother has a diagnosable condition of drug addiction which is unlikely to change within a reasonable period of time, and the condition makes her unlikely to provide minimally acceptable care; and 6) the minor child has been in the custody of DSS for greater than fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572 (1)-(4), (6), & (8) (Supp. 2005).  Additionally, the court found termination was in the best interest of the child.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572 (Supp. 2005).  After a thorough review of the record pursuant to Ex Parte Cauthen, 291 S.C. 465, 354 S.E.2d 381 (1987), we affirm[1] the family court’s ruling and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.