UP-485 - SCDSS v. Goodwin

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. Mashana Goodwin, Nathaniel Davis, and James Williams, Defendants, Of Whom James Williams is the Appellant. In the interest of a minor child under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2014-000573 Appeal From Spartanburg County Rochelle Y. Conits, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-485 Submitted December 10, 2014 – Filed December 29, 2014 AFFIRMED Richard Whitney Allen, of The Law Offices of Richard W. Allen, L.L.C., of Laurens, for Appellant. Deborah Murdock, of Murdock Law Firm, LLC, of Mauldin, for Respondent. Michael Todd Thigpen, of Spartanburg, for the Guardian ad Litem. PER CURIAM: James Williams appeals the family court's final order terminating his parental rights [TPR] to his minor child. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (2010 & Supp. 2013). 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 that warrant briefing.1 Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and grant counsel's petition to be relieved. AFFIRMED.2 FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 1 We find the family court properly terminated Williams's parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence he willfully failed to support and willfully failed to visit his minor child and TPR was in the minor child's best interest. See Doe v. Baby Boy Roe, 353 S.C. 576, 581, 578 S.E.2d 733, 736 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Having found one ground on which the family court properly terminated [the parent]'s parental rights, we need only determine that [TPR] is in [the child]'s best interests to affirm the family court's termination." (emphasis added)). 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.