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. Corey M. Nelson, Appellant.

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

Appellate Case No. 2024-000816

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-413 Submitted December 4, 2024 – Filed December 6, 2024

AFFIRMED

Nancy Carol Fennell, of Irmo, for Appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM: Corey M. Nelson appeals a permanency planning order concerning her two minor children (Children) in which the family court awarded permanent custody of Child 1 to her father (Father) and stepmother (Stepmother); dismissed Child 1, Father, and Stepmother from the case; ordered the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) to maintain custody of Child 2 while pursing relative placement for her; ordered Father, Stepmother, and DSS to supervise all visitation between Mother and Children; and allowed DSS to forego further reunification efforts. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1700 (Supp. 2024) (pertaining to permanency planning); § 63-7-1700(G)(1) (stating the family court may award custody to a fit and willing relative when a child cannot safely be returned to his or her parents and termination of parental rights is not in the child's best interest); S.C. Code Ann. § 63-7-1640(C) (Supp. 2024) (setting forth situations in which a family court may authorize DSS to forego reasonable efforts at family reunification). 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.1 Accordingly, we affirm the family court's ruling.

AFFIRMED.2 KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and HEWITT, 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.