SCDSS v. Rose Pandola - Non-Precedential Opinion Dismissed

South Carolina Supreme Court

Filed March 18th, 2026

Detected March 18th, 2026

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court has dismissed a writ of certiorari in the case of SCDSS v. Rose Pandola. This non-precedential opinion will not be cited or relied upon as precedent. The dismissal means the lower court's decision stands without further review by the Supreme Court.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The South Carolina Supreme Court has issued a memorandum opinion in the case of South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Rose Pandola and John Wallace, IV. The Court has dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. This opinion is explicitly non-precedential and should not be cited or relied upon as precedent, except under specific circumstances outlined by SCACR Rule 268(d)(2).

This dismissal means that the appellate review of the lower court's decision has concluded at the Supreme Court level without altering the prior ruling. Regulated entities, particularly those involved in child welfare cases within South Carolina, should note that this specific case outcome has no precedential value. Legal professionals and government agencies involved in similar matters should continue to rely on established precedential case law and statutory requirements.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

SCDSS v. Rose Pandola

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 2025-002080
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (0)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined 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 Supreme Court

South Carolina Department of Social Services,
Respondent,

Rose Pandola and John Wallace, IV, Defendants,

Of whom Rose Pandola is the Petitioner.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2025-002080

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Charleston County
Michèle Patrão Forsythe, Family Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2026-MO-001
Heard March 10, 2026 – Filed March 18, 2026

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Adam Sinclair Ruffin, of Ruffin Law Firm, LLC, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.

Sally R. Young, of North Charleston, and Alwyn Taylor
Silver, of Georgetown, both for Respondent.

Joshua Keith Roten, of Summerville, for Guardian Ad
Litem Kathryn Clement.

PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the court of appeal's decision in
SCDSS v. Pandola, Op. No. 2025-UP-289 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Aug. 5, 2025). After
careful consideration of the Appendix and briefs, the writ of certiorari is
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
KITTREDGE, C.J., FEW, JAMES, HILL and VERDIN, JJ., concur.