Subcommittee advances bill to shorten foster-care timelines, speed adoptions

A South Carolina Senate Family and Veteran Services subcommittee on a voice vote advanced bill S240 to the full committee after testimony from the bill sponsor, adoption attorneys and the state child advocate and agreement on several subcommittee amendments.

Senator Billy Garrett, sponsor and senator from Greenwood County, told the panel the bill is intended to “shorten the time it takes to get permanency planning so we can get a child adopted.” Garrett said the proposal would reduce the maximum reunification timeline from 18 months to 15 months and move the mandatory permanency-planning hearing earlier in the case.

The bill’s sponsors and witnesses framed the changes as aligning state practice with federal timelines and reducing how long children spend in foster care. “All the statistics say that getting them out of foster care, getting them into an adoptive care is the way to handle that. And the sooner you can do it, the better it is for the child,” Garrett said.

Attorney Jim Thompson, who practices adoption law and testified as a witness, described technical inconsistencies in South Carolina law and practice. Thompson said federal guidance created a 15‑month benchmark while state statute and court practice had allowed an 18‑month period in some cases, producing a three‑month gray area. He told senators the 15‑month trigger starts when a child enters foster care and that “15 months is long enough” for an earnest parent to work a reunification plan.

Amanda Whittle, state child advocate and director of the Department of Children’s Advocacy, gave data and procedural context. She outlined the sequence of hearings that follow a child’s removal — a probable cause hearing within roughly 72 hours, a merits hearing within about five to six weeks (the transcript records 35 days for the merits hearing and a 45‑day investigative window), and a permanency‑planning hearing that the bill would fix at 9 months instead of the current 12‑month statutory mark. Whittle said the federal goal is that children should reach permanency — by reunification, placement with kin, or adoption — within 24 months, and she cited research showing children’s chances of reunification fall sharply after two years in care.

Whittle also described changes intended to speed adoption after a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) filing: requiring the child welfare agency to begin background summaries and adoptive‑placement paperwork within 60 days of a TPR filing so a finalized adoption can move faster. She said those steps would let some adoptions be finalized faster and cited program experience showing shorter completion times for infants surrendered under “Daniel’s Law.”

Committee members pressed sponsors on safeguards and unintended consequences. Some senators raised concerns about whether shortening the timeline could disadvantage parents who are making progress but need more time for services, or whether shortening would matter if there are no immediate adoptive homes (particularly for older children and sibling groups). Garrett and witnesses replied that the bill preserves judicial discretion for case‑specific circumstances, that extraordinary circumstances are already grounds to proceed differently, and that the legislation can be amended to list allowable exceptions that a judge must put on the record.

Committee members also questioned two technical provisions: (1) language on service versus notice for unmarried biological fathers (testimony described prior confusion after responsible‑father provisions adopted in 2009), and (2) a mechanism for published notice when a parent cannot be found. Garrett and witnesses agreed the wording on service/notice should be clarified and proposed a subcommittee amendment to fix it.

Senators and witnesses agreed on additional subcommittee amendments: tightening timing inconsistencies between a 35‑day merits hearing and a 45‑day investigative window; clarifying that extensions beyond the statutory period require written findings and extraordinary circumstances; and adjusting the service/notice language for unmarried biological fathers. The chair said those amendments would be drafted and filed as subcommittee amendments.

At the conclusion of the hearing the subcommittee took a voice vote and approved a motion, with the bill as amended to be reported favorably to the full committee. The motion and second were recorded and the chair announced the favorable report; the transcript does not provide a roll‑call or numeric tally.

What the bill would change

- Permanency‑planning hearing: move from 12 months to 9 months (statutory change aligning with Department of Social Services’ 9‑month policy noted by witnesses).

- Reunification/review deadline: shorten the no‑longer‑than reunification period from 18 months to 15 months, counted from the date the child enters foster care; the 15‑month benchmark triggers consideration of filing for termination of parental rights in cases that have not achieved meaningful progress.

- Adoption readiness: require the agency to begin adoptive background summaries and placement work within 60 days of a TPR filing to reduce post‑TPR delays.

- Notice and service: clarify how unmarried biological fathers receive notice or service in TPR and adoption cases (language to be revised after subcommittee discussion).

- Publication: allow filing by publication when a parent cannot be located (as described by the sponsor).

- Reporting and guardianship: require more frequent reporting on key measures and contemplate stronger guardian ad litem involvement and single‑judge pilot structures for family‑court dockets (pilot programs mentioned by witnesses and sponsor).

Quotes

“Shorten the time it takes to get permanency planning so we can get a child adopted,” Senator Billy Garrett said, adding that the bill “is a small move” to reduce the timeline by three months while planning longer‑term reforms.

“The 15 months starts when the child comes into foster care,” Jim Thompson said, explaining the proposed trigger for moving toward a TPR filing.

“Time matters,” Amanda Whittle said, summarizing research on permanency and mental‑health outcomes and arguing earlier permanency hearings and faster post‑TPR paperwork would reduce the number of long‑stay cases in foster care.

Ending

The subcommittee approved the bill with the agreed drafting changes and sent it to the full committee with a favorable recommendation. Sponsors and staff said they will draft and circulate the technical amendments discussed at the hearing — tightening the merits/hearing timeline, clarifying service versus notice, and enumerating circumstances that justify delaying a statutory deadline — before the measure reaches the full committee.