South Carolina Department of Social Services v. A.H., T.H.

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.

A.H., T.H.,
John Doe, whose true name is unknown, Jack Doe, whose true name is unknown,
Robert Doe, whose true name is unknown, James Doe, whose true name is
unknown, Defendants,/Of Whom A.H. is the Appellant.

Appeal From Lancaster County

 Jerry D. Vinson, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-298

Submitted June 2, 2008 – Filed June 5,
2008   

AFFIRMED

Andrew Mead Thompson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Angela Michelle Killian, of Lancaster, for Respondent.

Govan Thompson Myers, III, of Lancaster, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM:  A.H.
(Mother) appeals the family court’s order terminating her parental rights (TPR)
to I.H., T.H., R.H., and P.H. (Children) based upon finding TPR is in
Children’s best interest and the following statutory grounds are satisfied: 
(1) Children resided in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two
months; (2) failure to remedy conditions that led to Children’s removal; (3)
diagnosable conditions prevent Mother from providing minimally acceptable care
of Children; and (4) willful failure to support Children, or to make a material
contribution to Children’s care, for a period in excess of six months.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572 (Supp. 2007).  Upon 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 Mother’s counsel.

AFFIRMED.[1]

ANDERSON, HUFF, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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