SCDSS v. Shealy

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. Natasha Shealy, Vernon L. Smith, Margaret Smith, and Thomas Smith, Defendants, Of whom Natasha Shealy is the Appellant. In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2020-000096 Appeal From Laurens County Mindy W. Zimmerman, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-251 Submitted August 13, 2020 – Filed August 21, 2020 AFFIRMED Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of Union, for Appellant.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. PER CURIAM: Natasha Shealy (Mother) appeals the family court's judicial review order that placed custody of her minor child (Child) with a relative; allowed the Department of Social Services to close its case and forego providing further services; permitted Mother visitation with Child when Child's therapist recommended it; and instructed Mother, Child, and their therapists to work on Mother and Child's relationship. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700 (Supp. 2019); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640 (Supp. 2019). 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 Mother's counsel. AFFIRMED.2 THOMAS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur. 1 See also S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Feb. 2, 2005 (expanding the Cauthen procedure to situations when "an indigent person appeals from an order imposing other measures short of termination of parental rights"). 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.