S. 143 amends South Carolina’s domestic abuse protection law to broaden who is covered as a “household member” and who may seek protection on behalf of a minor. The bill adds people who are or were in a dating relationship to the list of protected relationships, alongside spouses, former spouses, co-parents, and cohabitants. It also defines “dating relationship” as a romantic, courtship, or engagement relationship, and clarifies that casual or ordinary social/business interactions do not qualify.
The bill also expands who may file a petition for an order of protection for a minor household member. In addition to the minor themselves, a parent, guardian, custodian, legal counsel, or other appropriate adult may file on the minor’s behalf. The measure preserves existing procedures requiring verified petitions, notice to the respondent, simplified court forms, and no filing fee for domestic abuse protection petitions. It takes effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend Sections 20-4-20 and 20-4-40 of the South Carolina Code, expanding the Domestic Abuse Act’s coverage to include dating partners and strengthening access to protection orders for minors. The practical effect is to make family court protective relief available in a broader set of intimate-partner relationships and to allow more adults to initiate proceedings for children in abusive households. It does not create a new cause of action, but it enlarges the class of people eligible for protection and the class of persons authorized to file petitions.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported the bill out with a recommendation that it do pass, and no recorded votes or committee objections are included in the provided materials. The bill’s title and text indicate a protective, victim-centered purpose, and the committee action reflects support for expanding domestic violence protections.
Contention
The main policy issue is the scope of relationships covered by domestic abuse law. Supporters appear to favor including dating relationships so victims in non-marital intimate relationships can seek protection orders, while any potential concern would likely center on how broadly courts interpret “dating relationship” and whether the expanded definition could reach ambiguous relationships. A second point is who may petition for minors: the bill broadens standing beyond the minor to include parents, guardians, custodians, legal counsel, or other appropriate adults, which may raise questions about who qualifies as an “appropriate adult,” but the text does not show recorded opposition on that point.