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.
South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,
Anna W., David W., Randy H., and John Doe, Defendants,Of whom Anna W. is the Appellant.
In the Interests of:
Child #1, Child #2, Child #3, and Child #4, all minor children under the age of 18 years.
Appeal From Kershaw County
Dorothy Mobley Jones, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-202
Submitted March 1, 2010 – Filed March 12, 2010
Grady G. Hart, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant.
Anne Marie Ugarte and Carrie H. Tanner, both of Camden; Jack Walden, of Lugoff, for Respondent.
Roddy M. Jordan, of Elgin, for Guardian Ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Anna W. (Mother) appeals the family court's decision to terminate her parental rights (TPR) to her four minor children (collectively Children). See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (2008). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the family court erred in terminating Mother's parental rights based on the statutory ground that Children were in foster care for fifteen of the past twenty-two months: S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570(8) (2008) (allowing the family court to terminate parental rights when TPR is in the child's best interests and "[t]he child has been in foster care under the responsibility of the State for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months").
2. As to whether family court erred in finding Mother failed to remedy the conditions leading to Children's removal: S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570(2) (2008) (stating the family court may terminate parental rights when TPR is in the child's best interests and the child has been removed from the parent and has been out of the home for a period of six months following the adoption of a placement plan by court order or by agreement between the department and the parent, and the parent has not remedied the conditions that caused the removal); Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Pritchett, 296 S.C. 517, 520, 374 S.E.2d 500, 501 (Ct. App. 1988) ("[A]n attempt to remedy alone is inadequate to preserve parental rights. Otherwise, the statute would be couched in such terms. The attempt must have, in fact, remedied the conditions.").
3. As to whether the family court erred in finding Mother failed to materially and financially support Children: Stinecipher v. Ballington, 366 S.C. 92, 100 n.6, 620 S.E.2d 93, 98 n.6 (Ct. App. 2005) (finding once one statutory ground is met, an appellate court need not address whether any other ground for TPR has been proved).
4. As to whether the family court erred in determining TPR was in Children's best interests: S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Smith, 343 S.C. 129, 133, 538 S.E.2d 285, 287 (Ct. App. 2000) (noting the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in a TPR case).
HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.