Subcommittee backs bill to generally require attorneys as guardians ad litem, adopts amendment allowing lay guardians by agreement

At a Thursday meeting of the Domestic Relations, Business and Probate Law Subcommittee, members voted 5-0 to give House Bill 3,622 a favorable report as amended. The bill would generally require that guardian ad litems (GALs) in private child custody or visitation cases be licensed attorneys in good standing with the South Carolina Bar, while the adopted amendment preserves limited roles for qualified lay guardians.

House Bill 3,622 would change South Carolina law by making attorney status the default for GAL appointments in private custody and visitation matters. The amendment adopted by the committee modifies the proposal to allow the parties, regardless of whether they are represented, to mutually agree in writing and with court approval to appoint a lay guardian ad litem. The amendment also gives the court discretion, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, to appoint either a lay or attorney GAL and preserves the eligibility of individuals currently serving in pending cases.

The amendment was introduced and described by a subcommittee member, who said it was drafted with assistance from Representative Barton. Representative David Martin, who said he has practiced family law extensively in York County, argued the amendment was needed to preserve access for low-income, unrepresented parties. Martin cited long-serving lay guardians in York County — Holly Bennett, Terry Loveless and Terry Hagen — and said lay guardians often charge a fraction of what attorney GALs bill. "If you can't hire an attorney to represent you, it's going to be difficult for these people to be able to pay an attorney guardian ad litem," Martin said.

A subcommittee member noted the judiciary and the chief judge had asked that GALs be licensed attorneys when parties are represented, so that GALs would be subject to the rules of the South Carolina Bar and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The amendment preserves that expectation while adding the written-agreement and court-discretion exceptions.

The committee first adopted Amendment 1 by voice vote and then approved House Bill 3,622 as amended by roll call. Representatives Bernstein, Calhoun, Guest, King and Martin recorded votes of "aye." With a vote of 5 in favor and none against, the subcommittee gave the bill a favorable report as amended.

The bill now moves to the next step in the committee process for further consideration.