Christin Bishop v. Autumn Brooks

Opinion

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Christin and Heather Bishop, Respondents,

v.

Autumn Brooks, Michael Fontenot, and South Carolina Department of Social Services, Defendants,

AND

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Autumn Brooks and Michael Fontenot, Defendants.

Intervening Parties: Christin and Heather Bishop, Respondents,

Of which Autumn Brooks is the Appellant,

and

Michael Fontenot is a Respondent.

In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2024-001436

Appeal From Richland County M. Scott Rankin, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-269 Submitted July 15, 2025 – Filed July 24, 2025

AFFIRMED

Antoine Terrell Bostic, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Earnest Deon O'Neil, of Columbia, as the Guardian ad Litem for Appellant.

Becky M. Milholland, of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services.

James Fletcher Thompson, of Thompson Dove Law Group LLC, of Spartanburg, for Respondents Christin and Heather Bishop.

Patrick H. Nance, of Patrick H. Nance, Attorney at Law, of Columbia, for Respondent Michael Fontenot.

Angela L. Kohel, of Richland County CASA, of Columbia, for the Guardian ad Litem for the minor child.

PER CURIAM: Autumn Brooks appeals the family court's final order finding she physically abused her minor child (Child) and terminating her parental rights to Child. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1660(E) (2010) (setting forth findings a family court must make when removing a child from the custody of a parent); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2024). Upon a thorough review of the record and the family court's findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Ex parte Cauthen, 291 S.C. 465, 354 S.E.2d 381 (1987), we find no meritorious issues warrant briefing. Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling and relieve Brooks's counsel.

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

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