Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-632 - SCDSS v. Deweese

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.

Lisa Deweese, Eugene Howell, John Doe, and April Estes (d/o/b: 8-8-87), Austin Webb (d/o/b: 11-27-99), Aimee Howell (d/o/b: 8-5-01), Defendants,

of whom Lisa Deweese and Eugene Howell are Appellants.


Appeal From York County
 Robert E. Guess, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2005-UP-632
Submitted December 1, 2005 – Filed December 13, 2005


AFFIRMED


William Thomas Moody, of York and Robert W. McCleave,of Rock Hill, for Appellants.

David E. Simpson, of York, for Respondent.

Leah Moody, of Rock Hill, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM:  This appeal arises from the termination of the parental rights of Lisa Deweese and Eugene Howell.  The court found Deweese’s parental rights, as to Austin Webb and Aimee Howell, should be terminated on four grounds: 1) the children have been out of the home for a period of six months and Deweese has not remedied the conditions which caused the removal; 2) a willful failure to provide support; 3) Deweese has a diagnosable condition of drug and alcohol addiction that is unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and 4) the children have been in DSS’ custody for fifteen of twenty-two months.  The court found Howell’s parental rights, as to Aimee Howell, should be terminated on five grounds: 1) the child has been out of the home for a period of six months and Howell has not remedied the conditions which caused the removal; 2) a willful failure to provide support; 3) a willful failure to visit; 4) Howell has a diagnosable condition of drug and alcohol addiction that is unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and 5) the child has been in DSS’ custody for fifteen of twenty-two months.  Additionally, the court found termination was in the best interest of the child.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1572 (Supp. 2004).

After a thorough review of the record pursuant to Ex Parte Cauthen, 291 S.C. 465, 354 S.E.2d 381 (1987), we affirm[1] the family court’s ruling and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and HUFF and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


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