South Carolina subcommittee hears emotional testimony on competing shared‑parenting bills, moves to consider amendments

The House Judiciary Subcommittee reconvened April 24 to collect public testimony on two competing bills aimed at changing how family courts approach parenting time and custody. Lawmakers, family‑law practitioners and dozens of parents and children described sharply different experiences of South Carolina’s family court system and urged the panel to amend the proposals before advancing them.

Chairman (the meeting chair) opened the resumed hearing and said the subcommittee’s goal was to hear a wide range of perspectives on H4540 and H4622, the competing bills discussed. No formal votes were taken. After several hours of testimony the committee agreed to "investigate amending these two bills" and to reconvene with proposed changes and full committee participation.

Supporters of a statutory 50/50 starting presumption for parenting time argued the change would restore parental access and reduce litigation. Carlton Walker, a testifier who described long, costly litigation in his own case, urged the panel to make equal shared parenting the starting point "as long as both parents are able, willing and fit," and said courts should narrow the factors that allow judges to deviate from that presumption. Walker and other supporters cited high legal and guardian ad litem costs and said those financial incentives prolong cases. One parent who testified, identified in the hearing record as Matthew Moore, said he had paid roughly $400,000 in legal fees and argued the presumption would reduce uncertainty and cost.

Family‑law attorneys and court officials urged caution. Chris Patton, a Charleston family lawyer and former chair of the Family Law Section Council, said the Family Law Section reviewed the bills and recommended H4540 over H4622; he warned a statutory presumption could produce harmful outcomes at short temporary hearings that often rely on affidavits. Jennifer Creech, a Family Law Council chair and longtime family lawyer, told legislators that judges need discretion to tailor custody to a child’s special needs and cautioned that a presumption could "tie hands" and prioritize parental rights over children’s best interests.

Several witnesses called for changes outside the custody presumption debate: many urged stronger oversight and clearer standards for guardian ad litems (GALs), including licensing or state payment rather than hourly fees, and more robust evidentiary protections at critical stages of a case. Jordan Massey, an advocate for Representative Gatch’s equal‑parenting proposal, asked the committee to add a required evidentiary hearing in cases alleging abuse or other safety risks and to create clearer rules for GAL oversight.

The hearing included emotional testimony from people who identified as victims of the existing system. Eden Shirley, speaking as a person who said she grew up under family‑court supervision, asked legislators to consider how orders and courtroom practice affect children and siblings. Other witnesses described form orders, alleged failures to enforce court‑ordered services, and the lasting effects of removed or limited parental access.

Representative David Martin, who said he is a cosponsor of H4622 and the primary sponsor of a related House bill, thanked witnesses and pledged to review written testimony as the bills move through committee. After hearing the day’s testimony, Representative Govan moved that staff and committee members study amendments suggested by witnesses (including GAL oversight, evidentiary‑hearing triggers and changes to form orders) and the subcommittee agreed to reconvene with proposed amendments.

The subcommittee did not vote on H4540 or H4622 on April 24. Members said they will review written testimony submitted to the committee address and work with staff to draft amendments reflecting concerns raised at the hearing.