SCDSS v. T.G.

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.

T.G., L.N., R.M., M.E., D.G., and L.G., Defendants, 

Of whom T.G. is  Appellant.

In the Interest of:  T.N. 12-04-97, T.N. 05-18-99, T.G. 01-13-01, T.M. 05-23-02, T.E. 03-15-05, Minors Under the Age of 18.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
James F. Fraley, Jr., Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-089
Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed February 8, 2008   

---

AFFIRMED

---

W. Wallace Culp, III, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Deborah Murdock, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: T.G. appeals the family court’s denial of counsel’s request for a continuance of a permanency planning proceeding from which T.G. was absent.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority:  S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Broome, 307 S.C. 48, 51, 413 S.E.2d 835, 838 (1992) (“The granting or denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record.”).[1]    

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, SHORT, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

---

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