THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.† IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

A.H., T.H., John Doe, whose true name is unknown, Jack Doe, whose true name is unknown, Robert Doe, whose true name is unknown, James Doe, whose true name is unknown, Defendants,/Of Whom A.H. is the Appellant.


Appeal From Lancaster County
†Jerry D. Vinson, Jr., Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-298
Submitted June 2, 2008 Ė Filed June 5, 2008†††


AFFIRMED


Andrew Mead Thompson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Angela Michelle Killian, of Lancaster, for Respondent.

Govan Thompson Myers, III, of Lancaster, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: †A.H. (Mother) appeals the family courtís order terminating her parental rights (TPR) to I.H., T.H., R.H., and P.H. (Children) based upon finding TPR is in Childrenís best interest and the following statutory grounds are satisfied:† (1) Children resided in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months; (2) failure to remedy conditions that led to Childrenís removal; (3) diagnosable conditions prevent Mother from providing minimally acceptable care of Children; and (4) willful failure to support Children, or to make a material contribution to Childrenís care, for a period in excess of six months.† See S.C. Code Ann. ß 20-7-1572 (Supp. 2007).† Upon thorough review of the record and the family courtís 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 courtís ruling and relieve Motherís counsel.

AFFIRMED.[1]

ANDERSON, HUFF, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.


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