Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-381 - Charleston County Department of Social Services v. Arnold H.

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

Charleston County Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Gloria H., Arnold H., and John Doe, representing the unknown biological father(s), Ke’ierra H., Shaquoria M., Tavveon H., Shavon H., Candace H., and Antonio M. H., Antonio M., Defendants,

of whom Arnold H. is Appellant.

In the interest of Ke’ierra H., a child, D/O/B 12/11/92, Shaquoria M., a child, D/O/B 11/05/93, Tavveon H., a child, D/O/B 02/11/95, Shavon H., a child, D/O/B 02/11/95, Candace H., and Antonio M. H., a child, D/O/B 03/26/96, Antonio M., D/O/B 07/14/97.


Appeal From Charleston County
 Paul W. Garfinkel, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-381
Submitted November 21, 2006 – Filed November 22, 2006


AFFIRMED


Arnold H., of Hollywood and David A. Root, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Keith Edward Robinson, of North Charleston, as Appellant’s Guardian Ad Litem.

Sally C. Dey, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Ms. Lori Stoney and Michael C. Sgobbo, both of Charleston, for children’s Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM:  This appeal arises from the termination of the parental rights of Gloria H. (Mother) and Arnold H. (Father) to their six minor children.  The family court found Mother and Father’s parental rights should be terminated for three reasons: 1) Mother and Father have harmed their children through abuse or neglect, 2) Mother and Father have diagnosable mental disabilities making it unlikely they can or will be in the future able to care for the six children, and 3) the six children have been in foster care for fifteen of the last twenty-two months.  Additionally, the family court found that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest.  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 the family court’s ruling and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.[1]

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, STILWELL, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.


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