A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 63-3-605 SO AS TO REQUIRE JUDGES IN FAMILY COURT ACTIONS TO ISSUE ORDERS WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME FOLLOWING CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Summary
H4652 would add a new section to the South Carolina family court code requiring judges to issue written orders within a set timeframe after a hearing ends. In most cases, the order would have to be issued no later than 10 business days after the hearing concludes, or 7 business days after any post-hearing evidence is submitted, whichever is later. The bill also applies to matters taken under advisement by the court.
If a judge cannot meet those deadlines, the bill allows an extension only in extraordinary circumstances. During any extension, the judge must provide the parties a written explanation every 10 days describing why the delay continues. The measure also states that failure to comply may be addressed through judicial review or disciplinary action under existing law, and it would take effect upon the Governor’s approval.
Impact
The bill would create a new statutory deadline for family court judges in South Carolina, adding a procedural requirement to Title 63 governing family court practice. It would affect judges, litigants, attorneys, and court administration by speeding the issuance of orders and creating a formal mechanism for documenting delays. The bill does not change substantive family law outcomes, but it could influence how quickly custody, support, and other family court matters become final and enforceable.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be a process-oriented reform with an implied goal of improving timeliness and reducing delay in family court. The overall tone of the proposal is administrative and accountability-focused rather than ideological. No formal opposition or support is documented in the provided materials, so there is no recorded vote-based sentiment to assess.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the strictness of the deadline and whether it is realistic for family court judges to meet in all cases, especially where post-hearing evidence is submitted or cases are complex. Another possible concern is the enforcement provision, since the bill allows judicial review or disciplinary action for noncompliance, which could raise questions about judicial discretion and workload. Supporters would likely emphasize faster resolution for families and children, while critics may worry about unintended pressure on judges or rushed decision-making.