SCDSS v. Frank Russick

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.
Kristina Arsenault, Frank Russick, Sarah Arsenault, and
John Doe, Defendants,
Of whom Frank Russick is the Appellant.
In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.
Appellate Case No. 2022-001700
Appeal From Horry County
Jan B. Bromell Holmes, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-267
Submitted July 11, 2023 – Filed July 12, 2023
AFFIRMED
John Brandt Rucker and Allyson Sue Rucker, both of
The Rucker Law Firm, LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant
Frank Russick.
Christopher Craig Jackson, of Chris Jackson Law Firm,
LLC, of Mauldin, for Respondent.
Heather Moore, of Axelrod & Associates, PA, of Myrtle
Beach, for the Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Frank Russick appeals the family court's final order removing
his minor child from his care, granting permanent custody of the child to a relative,
authorizing the Department of Social Services to forego reasonable efforts at
reunification, and closing the case. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640 (Supp. 2022);
§ 63-7-1660 (2010 & Supp. 2022). 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.1 Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and relieve
Russick's counsel.
AFFIRMED. 2
WILLIAMS, C.J., and VINSON and VERDIN, 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 argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.