SCDSS v. Brock

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. Ashli Vice, Justin Brock, Christina Brock, Mark J. Bowman, and Rachael Christian, Defendants, Of whom Justin Brock is the Appellant, and Ashli Vice, Christina Brock, Mark J. Bowman, and Rachael Christian are Respondents. In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2019-001729 Appeal From Anderson County David E. Phillips, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-109 Submitted April 13, 2020 – Filed April 15, 2020 AFFIRMED Gregory Lee Cole, Jr., of Cox & Cole, Attorneys at Law, of Williamston, for Appellant. Brittany Dreher Senerius, of Anderson, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services. John Marshall Swails, Jr., of Greenville, for the Guardian ad Litem. PER CURIAM: Justin Brock appeals a family court order finding he did not remedy the conditions causing the removal of his daughter (Child); placing custody of Child with Christina Brock; and allowing the Department of Social Services to close its case. 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),1 we find no meritorious issues warrant briefing. Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and relieve Brock's counsel. AFFIRMED.2 LOCKEMY, C.J., and GEATHERS and HEWITT, JJ., concur. 1 See also SCDSS v. Downer, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated February 2, 2005 (expanding the Cauthen procedure to situations where an indigent person appeals an order imposing measures short of termination of parental rights, such as removal based on abuse and neglect). 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.