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. Tristen Ice, Martin Robinson, Diane Osbourne, and Billy Muse, Defendants, Of whom Tristen Ice is the Appellant, And Martin Robinson is a Respondent.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000653

Appeal From Dillon County Salley Huggins McIntyre, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-451 Submitted December 9, 2021 – Filed December 16, 2021

AFFIRMED

Elizabeth Biggerstaff York, of Darlington, for Appellant.

John D. McInnis, Jr., of John D. McInnis, Jr. Attorney at Law, of Dillon; and Scarlet Bell Moore, of Greenville, both for Respondent SCDSS.

Harry A. Hancock, of Columbia, for Respondent Martin Robinson.

Philip Bryan Atkinson, of Atkinson Law Firm, LLC, of Florence, for the Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Tristen Ice appeals the family court's final order granting permanent custody of her minor children to their father. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700 (Supp. 2020) (providing the family court may order relative placement as a permanent plan). 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 Ice's counsel.1 AFFIRMED.2 LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

See also S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Downer, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Feb. 2, 2005 (expanding the Cauthen procedure to situations when "an indigent person appeals from an order imposing other measures short of termination of parental rights").

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