Panel backs amendment requiring attorney guardians ad litem when parties are represented

The Domestic Relations Business and Probate Law Subcommittee voted 5-0 to give House Bill 3,622 a favorable report as amended, a bill that would generally require guardian ad litems in private child custody or visitation cases to be licensed attorneys when a party is represented by counsel.

The amendment adopted with unanimous support would allow parties, regardless of representation status, to mutually agree in writing and with court approval to appoint a lay guardian ad litem. It also gives courts discretion to appoint either a lay or attorney GAL based on the facts and circumstances of a case, and contains a grandfather clause allowing individuals already serving as GALs in pending cases to continue their roles unaffected by the statutory change.

Representative Paula Calhoun opened the item and described the bill’s scope, saying the proposal “would change South Carolina law by requiring guardian ad litems in private custody or visitation cases generally be licensed attorneys in good standing with the South Carolina bar.” She also introduced the amendment for the committee’s consideration.

Representative David Martin, who spoke during debate, said the amendment was intended to preserve access to representation in cases where parties could not afford attorneys. “When I practice family court, I’ve done hundreds, probably thousands of family law cases throughout the state, and we have been very blessed in York County to have some really good lay guardians who have 20 years’ experience,” Martin said. He named lay guardians Holly Bennett, Terry Loveless and Terry Hagen as examples and noted that lay guardians often charge a fraction of what attorney GALs bill.

Committee members discussed that the judiciary and the state bar had been consulted; the transcript records that the bar and the judiciary asked that GALs be attorneys when parties are represented so that GALs are subject to the rules of the bar and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

The committee then voted to adopt Amendment 1 to House Bill 3,622 and immediately voted to issue a favorable report as amended. Roll call recorded “Aye” votes from Representative Bernstein, Representative Paula Calhoun, Representative Guest, Representative John King and Representative David Martin; the committee chair announced the bill received a favorable report with a vote of 5 in favor and none against.

The bill’s text as discussed would preserve existing lay-GAL qualifications — including age, education, training, court observation and continuing education — but would tighten when lay GALs may be appointed. The amendment clarifies that written party consent and court approval would permit a lay GAL even when parties have counsel, and permits courts to exercise discretion to appoint a lay or attorney GAL depending on case circumstances. The transcript does not specify any dollar figures for GAL fees or a statutory fee schedule.

The measure moves forward from the subcommittee with the amendment; the transcript does not record further scheduling or committee assignments.