SCDSS v. Harvley
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. Ferris Harvley, James Bascomber, Gary Thomas, Gail Henson, Hannah Purnell, and Brian Purnell, Defendants, Of whom Ferris Harvley is the Appellant. In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2019-001592 Appeal From Laurens County Joseph C. Smithdeal, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-217 Submitted June 24, 2020 – Filed July 13, 2020 AFFIRMED Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of Union, for Appellant. Nathaniel B. Senn, III, of The Law Office of N.B. Senn, LLC, of Laurens, as Guardian ad Litem for Appellant. Rosemerry Felder-Commander, of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, of Laurens, for Respondent. Marcus Wesley Meetze, of Law Office of Marcus W. Meetze, LLC, of Simpsonville, for the Guardian ad Litem for the minor children. PER CURIAM: Ferris Harvley appeals the family court's order removing her minor children from her custody, placing them in the custody of alternate caregivers, and allowing the Department of Social Services (DSS) to forego reasonable efforts at reunification and close its case. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1660(E) (2010) (setting forth findings a family court must make when removing children from the custody of their parents); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640(C) (Supp. 2019) (setting forth situations when a family court may authorize DSS to forego reasonable efforts at family reunification). 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 Harvley's counsel. AFFIRMED.2 HUFF, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. 1 See also S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, S.C. Sup. Ct. Or. dated Feb. 2, 2005 (expanding the Cauthen procedure to removal actions). 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.
