S0901, the “Equal Parenting Act,” would revise South Carolina family-court law to create a strong presumption that joint custody with equal or approximately equal parenting time is in a child’s best interest. The bill applies this presumption in both temporary and final custody proceedings, and it requires courts to make specific written findings when they order a parenting schedule that departs from roughly equal time. It also states that parental interference with the other parent’s parenting time, as well as false or unfounded abuse allegations, can factor into custody modification decisions.
The bill also changes how guardians ad litem are appointed and supervised in private custody and visitation cases. It limits appointment to cases with substantial factual disputes or party consent, allows challenges based on guardian misconduct, bars appointment of certain persons with specified criminal convictions, and requires drug testing before appointment and annually thereafter. It further regulates guardian ad litem compensation by requiring advance fee authorization, itemized billing, court review of reasonableness, and possible expedited proceedings in lower-income cases to control costs.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would substantially amend South Carolina’s custody and guardians ad litem statutes in Title 63. It would shift the legal framework from a general best-interest standard with judicial discretion toward a rebuttable presumption favoring equal parenting time, while still allowing exceptions for domestic violence, agreed custody arrangements, and other evidence-based best-interest findings. The bill would also add procedural requirements for parenting plans, written findings, custody modifications, and fee allocation, and it would impose new eligibility, testing, and oversight rules for guardians ad litem in private family court actions.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to measure support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to advocates of shared parenting and greater accountability for guardians ad litem, while preserving explicit protections for domestic violence situations and child-welfare concerns. The overall tone of the proposal is reform-oriented and prescriptive, with a strong emphasis on equal parental involvement and procedural safeguards.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s presumption of equal or approximately equal parenting time and the limits it places on judicial discretion in custody cases. Supporters would likely view the measure as promoting fairness, parental involvement, and consistency, while critics may argue that a presumptive equal-time standard could be too rigid in cases involving conflict, abuse, special needs, or other individualized circumstances. The guardian ad litem provisions may also be controversial, especially the mandatory drug testing, expanded grounds for removal, and restrictions on compensation, which could be seen either as accountability measures or as burdens that may affect recruitment and practice.
Similar To
A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ENACTING THE "EQUAL PARENTING ACT"; BY AMENDING SECTIONS 63-3-810, 63-3-820, 63-3-830, 63-3-850, AND 63-3-870, ALL RELATING TO GUARDIANS AD LITEM APPOINTED IN PRIVATE FAMILY COURT ACTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS AGAINST GUARDIAN AD LITEM BIAS OR OTHER MISCONDUCT, TO CLARIFY THAT EQUAL PARENTING TIME FOR BOTH PARENTS IS PRESUMED TO BE IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST, AND TO ADDRESS THE APPORTIONMENT OF FEES AND COSTS; BY AMENDING SECTIONS 63-15-210, 63-15-220, 63-15-230, AND 63-15-240, ALL RELATING TO CHILD CUSTODY HEARINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT EQUAL PARENTING TIME IS PRESUMED TO BE IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST IN CHILD CUSTODY ACTIONS, THAT PARENTAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE PARENTING TIME OF THE OTHER PARENT IS GROUNDS FOR MODIFICATION OF A CHILD CUSTODY ORDER; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Relating to the application for appointment of a guardian and to requiring criminal history record information and other information in connection with the guardianship of a ward or the ward's estate.