Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Orders Of Protection Dating Relationships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill allowing dating partners to seek family-court protective orders
Summary
The committee advanced companion bills (S143 and S180) that would add dating partners to the statutory definition of household member for family-court orders of protection, add parental petition authority for minors, and remove gendered language in cohabitation definitions.
The South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee gave a favorable report to companion bills that add dating partners to the statute’s definition of "household member" for the purpose of seeking orders of protection in family court, remove gendered language from cohabitation language, and allow parents or guardians to petition for protection on behalf of a minor household member.
Senator Sharon (presenter) told the committee the measure defines "dating relationship" as a romantic courtship or engagement that need not include sexual involvement and identifies factors a court may consider — length, nature of the relationship, frequency of interaction and time since termination — when determining whether a dating relationship existed.
The bill would leave fact-finding to the judge in family court, Senator Vine said, and she emphasized the statute pertains to civil orders of protection rather than criminal domestic-violence offenses. Senator Chaplain and others asked about possible overbreadth, asking whether casual high-school dating could be captured. Senator Wilkinson and the bill's proponents said judges will evaluate the listed factors and evidence and that orders of protection remain time-limited (commonly 90 days to a year), not indefinite.
The change removing male/female language in the cohabitation definition responds to a 2017 South Carolina Supreme Court decision (Doe v. State) and aims to eliminate confusion about whether same-sex partners qualify for order protections.
The bill also expands who may file on behalf of a minor household member to include a parent, guardian, custodian or legal counsel. Proponents said family court judges routinely handle sensitive constitutional questions and are accustomed to the balancing required by protective-order proceedings.
Committee members debated venue and constitutional issues: Senator Stokes argued circuit court might be a better forum because orders may affect constitutional rights such as firearm possession and due-process interests; supporters countered family court handles similar matters and receives training on constitutional issues.
The committee adopted the subcommittee’s favorable report and advanced both bills (S143 and companion S180) to the full Senate; senators indicated the measures may be amended on the floor to refine definitions and venue language.
