Jane and John Doe v. Justice Mitchell

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedOctober 3, 2024
Docket2024-000170
StatusUnpublished

This text of Jane and John Doe v. Justice Mitchell (Jane and John Doe v. Justice Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jane and John Doe v. Justice Mitchell, (S.C. Ct. App. 2024).

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

Jane and John Doe, Respondents,

v.

Justice Mitchell, Jerry Wilder, and South Carolina Department of Social Services, Defendants,

Of whom Justice Mitchell is the Appellant

and

Jerry Wilder and South Carolina Department of Social Services are Respondents.

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

Appellate Case No. 2024-000170

Appeal From Richland County Gwendlyne Y. Jones, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-339 Submitted September 23, 2024 – Filed October 3, 2024

AFFIRMED

Adam Sinclair Ruffin, of Ruffin Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant. James Fletcher Thompson, of Thompson Dove Law Group LLC, of Spartanburg, for Respondents Jane and John Doe.

Nicholas Jordan Sharpe, of Ashby Jones and Associates LLC, of Lexington; and Andrew Troy Potter, of Anderson, both for Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services.

Jerry Wilder, of Columbia, pro se.

Cecelia Ann Clark-Donato, of Richland County CASA, of Columbia, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Justice Mitchell appeals the family court's final order terminating her parental rights to her minor child. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2023). 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 Mitchell's counsel.

AFFIRMED. 1

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Cauthen
354 S.E.2d 381 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jane and John Doe v. Justice Mitchell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jane-and-john-doe-v-justice-mitchell-scctapp-2024.