Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-033 - SCDSS v. Walker
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Patrick Walker, Tim Craig, Rodney Murray, Helen and Earnest King, Edward and Vickie Walker, Defendants,

of whom Patrick Walker is Appellant.

/In the Interest of:/Javario Ronitrawn Walker, 7 years old/Brittany Helena Nicole King, 10 years old/Rodrekus Harva King (deceased), 13 years old/Children under the age of 18/F


Appeal From Greenville County
 R. Kinard Johnson, Jr., Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-033   
Submitted January 1, 2005 – January 13, 2005


AFFIRMED


Linda B. McKenzie, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Rebecca Rush Wray, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Patrick Walker appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, Javario Ronitrawn Walker.  The family court found there was clear and convincing evidence of abuse of another child in the home, that there was additionally clear and convincing evidence of a history of abuse of that other child, that the other child’s death established a substantial risk of harm to the remaining children, and due to the repeated and severe abuse, the home could not be made safe within twelve months.  S.C. Code Ann § 20-7-1572(1) (Supp. 2003).  The family court also found the best interests of Javario were served by terminating Walker’s parental rights.

Pursuant to Ex parte Cauthen, 291 S.C. 465, 354 S.E.2d 381 (1987), Walker’s counsel attached to the record of the family court proceedings an affidavit stating she reviewed the transcript and was unable to determine any meritorious issues.  Neither DSS nor Walker filed a response to counsel’s affidavit.

Upon reviewing the record and the family court’s determination in its entirety, we find no meritorious issues warranting briefing.  Accordingly, the family court’s decision is

AFFIRMED.  1

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.