[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6340414,"mediaKeyId","2259426-d02f31fc00d3668ed18f75653c176743","parentId",2259426,"title","Public testimony pushes for attorney-only guardians, fee caps and stricter rules after subcommittee opens hearing on guardian ad litem bills","audioSeconds",241,"startMs",221000,"endMs",462000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2259426-d02f31fc00d3668ed18f75653c176743&start=221&end=462","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2259426-d02f31fc00d3668ed18f75653c176743/thumbnail_221000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6340414/South-Carolina/Public-testimony-pushes-for-attorney-only-guardians-fee-caps-and-stricter-rules-after-subcommittee-opens-hearing-on-guardian-ad-litem-bills","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340414-42bb6c055bdaffc3bd46ce84f7586c53/orig.mp4?Expires=1771208760&Signature=fZkzOz2vR1a8Fl9FMjW6MeMdg~fP1dm3Q4HNk3LntaVUoq4sbPtRkUYIdSsHyPCdbS0WgQywyNXaTaGPwunhUGY0cGueRUnd1FNciUUKvvKDjzEbzNZvuMSwQMTBRrpJB3RSy6kWzxgIOIjb~jjRp2kb1NgU-JBRMds2zIv4zgTXSeNlZigHslqhIqoh9sP3gJswEpSNfxekqBBfLCRrzl3NUtSPp-lQ6CAoVfx3rDXdfp~9JEHjCiNA4vqJns6At2H-idUBNVEQkBzY7npe9NOHwQ2nDmWjj5ebVTp2nvS7NyBl1SIv7fEikzI5nCTIh48v8Hsia5F1l~UHwFHqtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","South Carolina House of Representatives","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Speakers at a South Carolina House subcommittee hearing on Oct. 12, 2025, urged lawmakers to overhaul the guardian ad litem (GAL) system in family court, pressing for attorney-only GALs, caps on fees, restrictions on ex parte communications and limits on guardian access to litigants’ medical records. The subcommittee agreed to schedule an additional hearing to collect more testimony on several GAL-related bills.

Testimony from multiple parents described long-running custody disputes in which speakers said lay guardians or guardian-appointed attorneys disproportionately influenced judges’ decisions, ran up large fees and communicated privately with other parties or experts. Carlton Walker of Charleston, who identified himself as a residential builder and real estate broker, told the committee his case involved multiple guardians and lawyers whose fees he says totalled roughly $370,000 for one attorney and $58,000 for a lay guardian’s counsel; he said his family has paid about $3,906 per month for the next 100 months and estimated total legal costs near $860,000. Walker asked the subcommittee to consider requiring GALs be attorneys and to allow civil claims against guardians in line with Fleming v. Asbille (1997), which he cited as precedent for limiting absolute immunity; he also urged state payment for court-appointed guardians where judges request “eyes and ears.”

Other speakers gave similar accounts. Jill Swing of Charleston said her lay guardian later asked the judge to be removed and then was instead assigned an attorney who “ran up the bill,” and argued that GALs should not be appointed in uncontested custody cases. Swing recommended stricter educational requirements for lay guardians (beyond a high-school diploma), fee caps with required itemized timesheets when caps are exceeded, clearer limits on guardians’ authority to recommend medical treatments or block chosen counselors, and use of standardized checklists to reduce bias.

Meg Perino, who described herself and her son as victims of family court and a guardian ad litem, supported banning ex parte communications and requiring attorney GALs; she said the guardian assigned in her case appeared biased and that fees demanded before trial were excessive. Lisa (surname unclear in the record) said her case has run for seven years and described repeated psychological testing, multiple guardians, and interactions she characterized as manipulative; she told the committee she supports attorney-only GALs and stronger complaint and investigative mechanisms when guardians allegedly act improperly.

Jim McLaren, a family-law practitioner who said he was testifying in an individual capacity, urged preserving lay guardians in smaller counties while improving training and oversight. He opposed routing complaints about lay guardians to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), saying trial judges are the proper forum to police guardian conduct, and warned that strict bans on certain communications could be costly or allow tactical manipulation by parties.

Committee members asked clarifying questions during testimony. Representative David Martin noted family law’s emotional stakes and asked whether continuing education for lay guardians would help; witnesses generally supported stronger training and education requirements. Representative John Richard C. King raised questions about privacy protections if guardians have access to medical records; witnesses differed, but several argued medical-record access should be limited and subject to counsel oversight.

The subcommittee did not vote on any GAL-related bills during the session; the chair said the panel received seven additional GAL bills and asked staff to schedule another hearing to allow more people to testify. Committee staff will post the date and sign-up information on SCStatehouse.gov.

Speakers’ suggestions recorded in testimony included: requiring attorney GALs or higher minimum education for lay guardians; statutory fee caps and mandatory itemized time records when caps are exceeded; a prohibition or tighter limits on ex parte communications between GALs and other lawyers or therapists; restricting GAL access to litigants’ private medical records absent court order; standardized checklists for investigations to reduce bias; and clearer accountability channels when guardians are alleged to have acted improperly.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Committee -- Judiciary Domestic Relations, Business & Probate Laws Subcommittee - Feb 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Dozens of public commenters told the South Carolina subcommittee that guardian ad litem practices in family court need sweeping reforms: many urged requiring attorney guardians, fee caps, limits on record access and stronger accountability; the committee scheduled a follow-up hearing to gather additional testimony.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, South Carolina","taxId",17507,"location","South Carolina","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":44,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6340419,"Subcommittee gives favorable report to bill shifting child-advocacy hiring and reporting to Department of Children’s Advocacy",158,63000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2259426-d02f31fc00d3668ed18f75653c176743&start=63&end=221","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2259426-d02f31fc00d3668ed18f75653c176743/thumbnail_63000.jpg","/articles/6340419/South-Carolina/Subcommittee-gives-favorable-report-to-bill-shifting-child-advocacy-hiring-and-reporting-to-Department-of-Childrens-Advocacy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340419-44b550b5e90d97f5d3b964f04e74c1d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771208760&Signature=XCjek~9TbflbFCght4bHqGHo0TftZYTX1-g6-Q5M3CrS-bMLKbAds5WTM3-2gRrxhKRHppyj8zDMojfjsmZaoSSBlMN86FxKYrN2Lb-f1UEFBb8DdMXi-NgFThFuMdksbsJgRdGuihciZYEJGrOQCIsfNsBCwlhBZjg~0SXDtStv3CQdp-WacubXqmd~jVvRjMUbD16tcsP9eJqvWk2LvoKFIuH~ZX5E5AbV5-ZJPNjmUACZkqkNACv--qRGko1QhY-WWDFZloLygVMSsgcrZ8hz9keelDgl7m2vNe8sPLqP~bi0CkIiL1su-UybZDZbaNuxIKdlHteA-bnp0MslZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The South Carolina House Domestic Relations, Business and Probate Laws Subcommittee on Oct. 12, 2025, voted 5-0 to give House Bill 3654 a favorable report, moving regulatory authority and certain hiring and reporting responsibilities for parts of the child advocate system to the Department of Children’s Advocacy.

House Bill 3654, introduced by Representative Paula Calhoun, updates how state and county guardian ad litem programs interact with the state child advocacy system. The bill, summarized to the subcommittee by legislative staff, explicitly allows county and state guardian ad litem program staff and the state child advocate access to child-welfare records, transfers authority for regulations and hiring to the Department of Children’s Advocacy, and requires the department to include activities and recommendations of the continuum-of-care division in its annual report to the governor and General Assembly.

The changes remove certain powers previously held by the foster care review board and move hiring decisions for division directors from gubernatorial appointment to Department of Children’s Advocacy decision-making, according to the summary presented to the committee. Amanda Whittle, identified in the hearing record as head of the child advocacy agency, provided testimony to the committee during prior hearings and was listed by staff as a witness during discussion of the bill.

During roll call, Representative Bernstein, Representative Paula Calhoun, Representative Val Gess, Representative John Richard C. King and Representative David Martin each voted “aye.” The clerk announced the tally as five in favor, zero opposed. The subcommittee recorded the bill as having a favorable report and will forward it according to the chamber’s rules for further consideration.

Committee members and staff also used the remaining time in the meeting to schedule an additional subcommittee hearing to receive public testimony on several guardian ad litem–related bills that had been filed, so the bill’s advancement occurred alongside the subcommittee’s agreement to gather more public input on related matters.

The bill’s supporters say the changes will centralize oversight, streamline hiring and improve transparency in child-welfare cases; the committee did not adopt substitutions or amendments at the meeting. The bill summary and committee roll call were added to the subcommittee’s record and will be posted with other materials on SCStatehouse.gov following adjournment.","The Domestic Relations, Business and Probate Laws Subcommittee gave a favorable report to House Bill 3654, moving regulatory and hiring authority for parts of the child advocate system to the Department of Children’s Advocacy and strengthening reporting and records-access provisions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Public testimony pushes for attorney-only guardians, fee caps and stricter rules after subcommittee opens hearing on guardian ad litem bills

Subcommittee gives favorable report to bill shifting child-advocacy hiring and reporting to Department of Children’s Advocacy