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Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-298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.