SCDSS v,. Amy Collins

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedOctober 16, 2025
Docket2025-000521
StatusUnpublished

This text of SCDSS v,. Amy Collins (SCDSS v,. Amy Collins) 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
SCDSS v,. Amy Collins, (S.C. Ct. App. 2025).

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

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Amy Collins, Reynaldo Marroquin, and Fred Stewart, Defendants,

of whom Amy Collins is the Appellant

and

Reynaldo Marroquin and Fred Stewart are Respondents.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2025-000521

Appeal From Anderson County Karen F. Ballenger, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-352 Submitted October 14, 2025 – Filed October 16, 2025

AFFIRMED

Harry A. Hancock, of Columbia, for Appellant. Robert Mills Ariail, Jr., of Law Office of R. Mills Ariail, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent Fred Stewart.

Nima Fiuzat, of Easley, for Respondent Reynaldo Marroquin.

Andrew Troy Potter, of Anderson, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services.

Kimberly Welchel Pease, of Kimberly Welchel Pease, Attorney at Law, of Seneca, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Amy Collins appeals the family court's final order terminating her parental rights to her minor children. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-2570 (Supp. 2025). 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 Collins's counsel.

AFFIRMED. 1

MCDONALD, HEWITT, and TURNER, 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)
SCDSS v,. Amy Collins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scdss-v-amy-collins-scctapp-2025.