Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Orders Of Protection Dating Partners topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee advances bills to add dating partners to orders of protection after debate over scope and Second Amendment concerns
Summary
S.143 and S.180, which would extend civil orders of protection to dating partners and update gendered cohabitation language, were approved favorably to the full committee after testimony from advocacy groups and the NRA and extended debate over due process and firearm-disability consequences.
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee voted to give favorable reports to the full committee on S.143 and S.180, two related bills that would extend civil orders of protection to dating partners and correct gendered language in the code to conform with the state supreme court's 2017 Dovi v. State decision.
Sarah Barber, executive director of the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, testified in support and urged the subcommittee to grant dating partners access to orders of protection. Barber said the bills align the state's definition of "dating partner" with the Violence Against Women Act and outlined the multi-factor test the bills use: length of relationship, type of relationship, frequency of interaction and time since termination of the relationship. She cited SLED statistics to underscore the policy case: "In the 2023 reports, SLED reported that 33 of the 55 intimate partner homicides in South Carolina, or 59 percent, were committed by a current or former girlfriend or boyfriend." Barber said current state definitions exclude many dating partners from eligibility for civil orders and that South Carolina is one of four states that does not currently provide that remedy.
The National Rifle Association's representative, Taylor McKee, testified in opposition on technical and due-process grounds. McKee said the bills could expand the pool of people subject to orders of protection that, under federal and state law, can impose a firearm disability. He told senators the definition of "dating relationship" is "vaguer and more broad" than the federal "intimate partner" standard and said expanding orders to dating partners raises concerns about whether respondents would receive adequate procedural protections before losing constitutional rights. McKee asked whether the bills would apply retroactively and whether the statutes would capture young people near the age of majority.
Senators from Richland and Florence questioned McKee and discussed the family-court process. One senator noted family-court orders are decided by a judge in a hearing with testimony under oath and that respondents receive notice and have the opportunity to present evidence and counsel. Several senators emphasized that a favorable report to the full committee does not prevent later amendments; the NRA and committee members said they would work on alternative language and possible venue changes.
The subcommittee considered a motion to table the favorable-report motion but the tabling motion failed. The subcommittee then voted to report S.143 and S.180 favorably to the full committee. Committee members said amendments could be offered at full committee to address due-process and firearm issues and to refine the definition of "dating relationship."
