Brooke A. Grooms v. Fred Hopkins

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 Brooke Ashleigh Grooms and Eric Wayne Grooms, Respondents, v. Cheryl Turner Hopkins and Fred Hopkins, Defendants, Of whom Fred Hopkins is the Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2020-001590 Appeal From Florence County Huntley S. Crouch, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-371 Submitted September 21, 2022 – Filed October 3, 2022 AFFIRMED Kimberly Yancey Brooks, of Kimberly Y. Brooks, Attorney at Law, of Greenville, for Appellant. Brooke Chapman Evans, of Evans & Turnblad, LLC, of Florence, for Respondents. Kathryn F. Free, of Kathryn F. Free, Attorney at Law, of Elgin, as Guardian ad Litem. PER CURIAM: Fred Hopkins appeals the family court's final order finding Brook and Eric Grooms the de facto custodians and psychological parents of Child, granting them sole custody of Child, ordering Hopkins to have no contact with Child, and changing Child's last name. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-60(C) (Supp. 2021) ("The family court may grant . . . custody of a child to the de facto custodian if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child's natural parents are unfit or that other compelling circumstances exist."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-49-10(B) (Supp. 2021) ("A parent who desires to change the name of his minor child may petition, in writing, a family court judge in the appropriate circuit . . . ."). 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 Hopkin's counsel. 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.