SCDSS v. Bailey

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. Brooke Bailey and Joseph Greene, Defendants, Of whom Brooke Bailey is the Appellant. In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2020-001306 Appeal From Horry County Ronald R. Norton, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-092 Submitted March 4, 2021 – Filed March 19, 2021 AFFIRMED Heather Vry Scalzo, of Byford & Scalzo, LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant. Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, for Respondent. Michael Julius Schwartz, of Russell B. Long, PA, of Myrtle Beach, for the Guardian ad Litem. PER CURIAM: Brooke Bailey appeals the family court's order removing her minor child from her custody, finding she physically abused and physically neglected her minor child, and allowing the Department of Social Services (DSS) to forego reasonable efforts at reunification. 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. 2020) (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 Bailey's counsel. AFFIRMED.2 WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and HILL, 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.