SCDSS v. Mendy Evans

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. Mendy Evans, Michael Evans, and Chiniko McCall, Defendants, Of whom Mendy Evans is the Appellant. In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2021-000083 Appeal From Chesterfield County Michael S. Holt, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-357 Submitted October 15, 2021 – Filed October 18, 2021 AFFIRMED Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks, Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant. Cody Tarlton Mitchell, Lucas Warr & White, of Hartsville, as the Guardian ad Litem for Appellant. Tracy L. Bomar-Howze, of The Howze Law Firm, of Rock Hill; and Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, both for Respondent. C. Heath Ruffner, of McLeod & Ruffner, of Cheraw, for the Guardian ad Litem for the child. PER CURIAM: Mendy Evans appeals the family court's final order that found her home was not safe for reunification, granted custody of her minor child with a relative, and allowed the Department of Social Services to close its case and forego providing further services. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700 (Supp. 2020); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640 (Supp. 2020). 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 Mendy's counsel. AFFIRMED. 2 KONDUROS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur. 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. 1

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.