SCDSS v Sunshine Gable

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. Sunshine Gable and Mamadou Diagne, Defendants, Of whom Sunshine Gable is the Appellant. In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2021-000604 Appeal From Lexington County W. Greg Seigler, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-341 Submitted August 15, 2022 – Filed August 17, 2022 AFFIRMED Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks, Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant. Benjamin Reynolds Elliott, of Stevens B. Elliott, Attorney At Law, of Columbia, as the Guardian ad Litem for Appellant. Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, for Respondent. Brett Lamb Stevens, of Stevens Law, LLC, of Columbia, for the Guardian ad Litem for the Children. PER CURIAM: Sunshine Gable appeals the family court's final order that (1) found she had placed the children at substantial risk for harm and her home was not safe for reunification; (2) granted custody of Child 2 to his biological father and dismissed Child 2 and the father from the case; and (3) ordered legal and physical custody of Child 1 to remain with the Department of Social Services (DSS) and allowed DSS to forego providing further services. 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. 2021) (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. AFFIRMED. 2 WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., 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 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.