Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-177 - SCDSS v. Adrienne M.

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.

Adrienne M., William D., Stephanie M., and Ernest M., Defendants,

of whom Adrienne M. is the Appellant.

In the interest of minor child under age 18.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-177
Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed April 28, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Jessica Salvini and Thomas Quinn, both of Greenville, for Appellant.

Deborah Murdock, of Mauldin, for Respondent.

Robert A. Clark, of Greenville, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Adrienne M. (Mother) appeals the family court's order (1) finding Mother's minor child (Child) suffered physical injuries; (2) granting the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) temporary custody of Child; (3) relieving DSS of making reasonable efforts to reunite or preserve Child's family; and (4) approving the permanency plan recommended for Child by DSS.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: South Carolina Code Ann. § 63-7-20(18) (Supp. 2008) (“Physical injury means death or permanent or temporary disfigurement or impairment of any bodily organ or function."); § 63-7-1640(C) (Supp. 2008) (stating the family court may authorize DSS to forego reasonable efforts or reunify the family when the court determines the parent has subjected the child to severe or repeated abuse or neglect); § 63-7-1640(F) (Supp. 2008) ("In determining whether to authorize the department to terminate or forego reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify a family, the court must consider whether initiation or continuation of reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family is in the best interests of the child.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., CURETON, A.J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.


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