Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Guardians Ad Litem topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel backs bill requiring attorney guardians ad litem in most represented custody cases
Summary
The Domestic Relations Business and Probate Law Subcommittee voted 5-0 to give House Bill 3,622 a favorable report after adopting an amendment that lets parties mutually agree to a lay guardian ad litem and preserves existing appointments in pending cases.
House Bill 3,622 would change South Carolina law to require that guardians ad litem in private child custody or visitation cases generally be licensed attorneys in good standing with the South Carolina Bar. The Domestic Relations Business and Probate Law Subcommittee voted 5-0 to give the bill a favorable report as amended.
The bill, as originally filed, would have limited appointments to attorneys when parties are represented. Representative David Martin, a committee member, supported an amendment that lets parties, regardless of representation status, mutually agree in writing — with the court’s approval — to appoint a lay guardian ad litem. The amendment also gives the court discretion, based on the circumstances of a case, to appoint either a lay or attorney guardian and protects individuals currently serving as attorneys or lay guardians in pending cases so they can continue without interruption.
The nut of the discussion was access and oversight. Representative David Martin said he has worked many family-court cases in York County and that experienced lay guardians charge a fraction of attorney fees, noting that some unrepresented parties could not afford an attorney guardian. He cited named lay guardians in his county as examples of experienced practitioners the amendment would preserve.
Committee members also noted the judiciary’s interest in ensuring guardians who serve when parties are represented are licensed attorneys so they fall under the rules and discipline of the South Carolina Bar and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. After debate, the committee adopted the amendment and then approved the bill as amended by roll call vote.
Votes at the committee on HB 3,622 were recorded as: Representative Bernstein — yes; Representative Paula Calhoun — yes; Representative Guest — yes; Representative John King — yes; Representative David Martin — yes. The committee clerk announced the bill received a favorable report as amended.
