Subcommittee expands protections to include dating partners, minors in protective-order bill

The Domestic Relations, Business and Probate Law Subcommittee gave House Bill 3603 a favorable report, 5-0, after testimony from advocates and a senator who said the bill would extend civil protective-order eligibility to people in dating relationships and improve access to orders for minors.

The bill would amend the statutory definition of “household member” to include persons who are cohabitating or have cohabitated and would add a definition of “dating relationship” to cover romantic relationships, courtship or engagement where the relationship’s length, nature, frequency of interaction and time since termination may be considered. The measure would exclude casual social interactions from the definition. The bill also would allow parents, guardians, legal counsel or other appropriate adults to file petitions on behalf of minors seeking protective orders.

Sora Barber of the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault told the committee the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) tracks intimate-partner crimes and that data show “over 50%” of the crimes SLED records are committed by current or former dating partners. Senator Devine, sponsor of a companion bill in the Senate, urged the House to act so both chambers can advance the measure this year: “We strongly would encourage the House to take this up so we can keep both tracks and hopefully get this passed this year,” she said.

Committee members asked whether the change could unintentionally sweep in roommate conflicts or college-student roommates. Senator Devine and other supporters said the dating-relationship definition’s enumerated factors — including the type and length of the relationship and frequency of interactions — are intended to exclude casual or roommate relationships. The bill applies to civil orders of protection in family court and does not change criminal charges.

A roll call recorded affirmative votes from Representative Bernstein, Representative Paula Calhoun, Representative Val Guest, Representative John King and Representative David Martin; the bill received a favorable report and will move forward in the legislative process.

The committee packet included an outline from the Children's Committee that sponsors said summarizes the bill’s scope. Supporters noted South Carolina was one of a small number of states that did not allow dating partners without a common child to seek the stronger civil protections provided by the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act; they said recent changes in a few states have moved that count. The bill’s proponents framed it as closing a statutory gap that leaves some victims of dating violence without access to civil protective orders.

Votes at a glance: favorable report on HB 3603 — roll call 5-0.