Subcommittee approves requiring attorneys as guardians ad litem in most private custody cases

The Domestic Relations Business and Probate Law Subcommittee unanimously voted to give House Bill 3,622 a favorable report as amended, a measure that would generally require guardians ad litem (GALs) in private child custody and visitation cases to be licensed attorneys in good standing with the South Carolina Bar.

The amendment, offered during the subcommittee meeting and drafted with assistance from Representative Barton, would allow parties — regardless of whether they are represented by counsel — to mutually agree in writing, with court approval, to the appointment of a qualified lay guardian ad litem. It also gives the court discretion to appoint either a lay or attorney GAL based on the circumstances of a case and preserves the eligibility of individuals already serving as GALs in pending matters.

Proponents said the change responds to concerns about oversight and professional accountability. Representative Paula Calhoun, chairing the subcommittee, noted that when parties are represented by counsel the judiciary and the South Carolina Bar have asked that GALs be licensed attorneys so they are subject to the Bar's rules and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Representative David Martin, who supported the amendment, said experienced lay guardians have provided an affordable option in some counties and cited several long‑serving lay guardians by name. "We have been very blessed in York County to have some really good lay guardians who have 20 years' experience — Holly Bennett, Terry Loveless, Terry Hagen — and the lay guardian items charge a fraction of what attorney guardian items do," Martin said, arguing that the amendment allows courts to use lay guardians in cases where parties cannot afford an attorney.

The amendment was adopted by voice vote and the subcommittee then ordered a roll call on the bill as amended. Representatives Bernstein, Paula Calhoun, Val Gass, John King and David Martin all voted "aye," producing a 5–0 favorable report from the subcommittee. The committee record shows two formal actions on this item: adoption of Amendment 1 and a favorable report of House Bill 3,622 as amended.

The bill, as discussed in the meeting, would keep existing qualification requirements for lay GALs — such as age, education, training, court observation and continuing education — while narrowing the default appointment authority to licensed attorneys, unless the parties agree otherwise or the court exercises discretion. The meeting transcript does not specify next steps beyond the favorable report to the House committee process.