UP-281 - South Carolina Department of Social Services v. White
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. Trilicia White and Willie Miller, Defendants, Of Whom Trilicia White is the Appellant, In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2014-001782 Appeal From York County Thomas Henry White, IV, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-281 Submitted April 6, 2015 – Filed June 5, 2015 AFFIRMED Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of Union, for Appellant. David E. Simpson, of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, of Rock Hill, for Respondent. Laura Kaiser Anderson, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for the Guardian ad Litem. PER CURIAM: Trilicia White appeals the family court's finding that she physically neglected her two-year-old child, arguing the family court erred in finding she physically neglected the child by placing the child at a substantial risk of injury. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Simmons v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, [an appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 384, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) ("[An] appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence. However, this broad scope of review does not require [the appellate court] to disregard the findings of the family court." (internal quotation marks omitted)); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-20(4)(a) (2010) (providing child abuse or neglect occurs when a child's parent "engages in acts or omissions which present a substantial risk of physical or mental injury to the child").1 AFFIRMED.2 FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur. 1 In her brief, White also raised the issue of whether removal of the child was necessary. However, in a supplemental memorandum filed with this court, White indicated the parties had reached an agreement for her to regain custody of the child and stated the finding of physical neglect "is the reason for this appeal." Therefore, we need not address the removal issue. 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
