Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Court Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chief justice and retired judges urge caution as SC subcommittee hears two joint-custody bills
Summary
A South Carolina House subcommittee heard testimony on two bills (H4540 and H4622) that would change custody and parenting-plan rules; Chief Justice Kittredge and retired judges warned that statutory presumptions risk constraining judicial discretion, while advocates and some commenters backed rebuttable presumptions and shared-parenting research.
The Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity, and Special Laws Subcommittee heard public testimony on two bills addressing joint custody and parenting plans — H4540 and H4622 — and recessed under House Rule 6.3 to reconvene later. Chief Justice Kittredge of the South Carolina Supreme Court told the panel that family court is a court of equity and cautioned against legislative presumptions that could 'tilt' the playing field and constrain judges’ ability to apply the 'best interest of the child' standard.
Kittredge, who said he served nearly 35 years as a judge including time in family court, said family-court work is intensely emotional and fact-driven and that judicial discretion is essential in equity cases. "When dealing with equity, facts ... are controlling," he told the subcommittee, adding that presumptions in statute can create a "minefield" judges must navigate rather than allowing courts to reach child-centered results through individualized fact-finding.
The two bills differ in scope. The chair summarized H4540 as largely modernizing parenting-plan procedures and clarifying that courts may order sole or joint custody based solely on the child's best interest without a statutory presumption favoring one outcome. H4622 is broader, the chair said, proposing changes to Guardian ad Litem procedures and creating a rebuttable presumption favoring joint custody with equal or nearly equal parenting time.
Advocates for shared parenting told the subcommittee that research supports greater parenting time with both parents in many cases. Patrick Burke, executive director of the Ready Charitable Foundation, cited studies he said showed declines in child-welfare investigations and domestic-violence incidents after jurisdictions adopted shared-parenting laws and urged support for H4622; he offered to submit his presentation and source studies to committee staff. "When children have warm relationships with both parents, they're less likely to internalize problems," Burke said.
By contrast, several speakers with judicial or family-law experience urged caution. Jim McLaren, a family-law attorney with decades of practice, and a retired family court judge identified in testimony as Riddle said judges need flexibility to account for case-specific factors such as abuse, mental-health issues, addiction and special-needs children. McLaren recommended replacing language framed as "custody and visitation" with "parenting plans" that allow age- and maturity-specific guidance.
A public commenter, identified as Mr. Patel, urged the subcommittee to move the bills to a House vote and argued that the current system often produces 'cookie-cutter' schedules that do not preserve meaningful parent–child bonds. Patel also asserted that the family-court ecosystem creates perverse incentives; that claim was presented as his opinion during public comment.
No formal votes were taken in the hearing. The chair said the panel would recess for the House session under House Rule 6.3 and reconvene in recess to continue testimony and receive written materials. Several witnesses — including Burke and McLaren — said they would provide studies and written materials to staff for the subcommittee’s review.
What happens next: The subcommittee will resume in recess after the House session to continue hearing public testimony and may schedule further consideration or mark-up at a later date; no bill text was amended or voted on during the session described in the transcript.
