A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODES OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-2960 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON CONVICTED OF FELONY DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF A PARENT OR GUARDIAN MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT UNTIL THE CHILD OR DEPENDENT REACHES THE AGE OF TWENTY-TWO.
Summary
H5092 would add a new section to South Carolina law requiring a sentencing court to order restitution in the form of financial support when a person is convicted of felony driving under the influence and that offense causes the death of a parent or guardian of a minor child. The support would be paid to each child or dependent of the victim until the child or dependent reaches age 22. In setting the amount, the court must consider the child’s needs and resources, the surviving parent or guardian’s financial situation, the child’s standard of living, physical and emotional condition, educational needs, custody arrangements, and reasonable childcare expenses.
The bill also addresses how this restitution interacts with civil lawsuits. If the surviving parent or guardian first brings a civil action and fully recovers damages before the court orders restitution, the restitution order would not be entered. If restitution is ordered first and a later civil judgment is obtained, the restitution amount would be offset by the amount of the civil judgment paid by the defendant or the defendant’s insurance for lost wages or loss of earning capacity. The act would take effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Impact
The bill would create a new mandatory restitution framework in Title 56 for certain felony DUI convictions involving the death of a parent or guardian, expanding sentencing consequences beyond criminal penalties to include long-term financial support obligations. It would affect sentencing courts, defendants convicted under Section 56-5-2945(B), surviving children or dependents, and surviving parents or guardians, while also coordinating with related civil damages claims to avoid duplicative recovery.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be protective of victims’ families and supportive of holding impaired drivers financially accountable for the harm caused. The measure is framed as a child-support-style restitution remedy rather than a general punitive expansion, suggesting a victim-centered approach. No contrary positions are documented in the available record.
Contention
The main policy issues likely concern whether a criminal court should impose a support obligation that lasts until age 22, how to calculate a “reasonable and necessary” amount, and how the new restitution order should interact with civil litigation and insurance recoveries. Potential points of contention include fairness to defendants, the scope of judicial discretion, and whether the remedy should be treated as restitution, child support, or a hybrid financial obligation. The bill text does not show any recorded opposition or amendments, so no specific member or stakeholder objections are available.