South Carolina's Equal Parenting Act (HB 4622) would flip the state's custody framework by requiring judges to start every case with a rebuttable 50-50 presumption, shifting the burden onto parents who want unequal time. On April 2, 2026, WIS-TV reported that Chief Justice John Kittredge publicly criticized the bill, warning it "ties judges' hands" and undermines the child's best interest standard codified in S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240. HB 4622 and companion bill HB 3085 remain held in committee pending amendments.
Key Facts
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| What happened | SC Chief Justice John Kittredge publicly opposed the Equal Parenting Act (HB 4622) |
| When | April 2, 2026 (Kittredge's public criticism reported by WIS-TV/FITSNews) |
| Where | South Carolina General Assembly (House Judiciary Committee) |
| Who's affected | Divorcing and separating parents statewide; roughly 12,000+ custody cases filed annually in SC family courts |
| Key statute affected | S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240 (best interest factors) |
| Current status | HB 4622 and HB 3085 held in committee pending amendments |
| Practical impact | Would reverse the judicial presumption against 50-50 to one in favor of equal time |
Why This Matters Legally
The Equal Parenting Act would fundamentally restructure South Carolina custody law by replacing judicial discretion with a statutory thumb on the scale. Under the current framework, family court judges weigh 17 best-interest factors enumerated in S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240(B) and reach a custody determination tailored to the specific child. HB 4622 would require judges to begin every case at 50-50 physical custody unless a parent produces evidence sufficient to rebut that presumption.
Chief Justice Kittredge's opposition carries institutional weight. The Chief Justice rarely comments on pending legislation, and his critique — that the bill "ties judges' hands" — signals that the judiciary views the proposed presumption as incompatible with case-by-case analysis. His position aligns with the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, which has opposed statutory 50-50 presumptions in all 50 states since 2017 on the grounds that they subordinate individual child welfare to a one-size-fits-all rule.
Supporters of HB 4622 counter that the existing system structurally disadvantages fathers and produces inconsistent outcomes across South Carolina's 16 judicial circuits. They point to research from the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage (2018) showing that children in shared-parenting arrangements report equivalent or better outcomes on measures of academic performance, mental health, and relationship stability, controlling for pre-separation conflict.
How South Carolina Law Handles Custody Today
South Carolina family courts currently apply the best-interest-of-the-child standard set out in S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240, with no statutory presumption for or against any specific custody arrangement. Judges weigh 17 enumerated factors, including:
- The temperament and developmental needs of the child
- The capacity and disposition of each parent to understand those needs
- The preferences of each parent and, where age-appropriate, the child
- The past and current interaction of each parent with the child
- The actions of each parent to encourage the continuing parent-child relationship
- Evidence of domestic violence under S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240(B)(15)
South Carolina law distinguishes between legal custody (decision-making authority) and physical custody (where the child resides). S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-230 authorizes courts to award joint or sole custody in either category. In practice, joint legal custody with one primary physical custodian remains the most common outcome in contested South Carolina cases — a pattern HB 4622 is explicitly designed to disrupt.
Under current law, parents seeking 50-50 physical custody must affirmatively demonstrate that the arrangement serves the child's best interest. HB 4622 would flip that burden: the parent opposing equal time would need to produce evidence showing why unequal time better serves the child.
Practical Takeaways for South Carolina Parents
-
Do not file or modify based on HB 4622 yet. The bill is held in committee as of April 2026 and may not pass in its current form. Filing strategy should reflect current law under S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240.
-
Document your parenting involvement now. Whether or not the 50-50 presumption becomes law, South Carolina courts weigh each parent's historical caregiving role. Keep dated records of school pickups, medical appointments, extracurriculars, and overnight parenting time.
-
Understand your judicial circuit's tendencies. Custody outcomes vary across South Carolina's 16 circuits. An attorney practicing in your specific family court will know which judges favor shared parenting and which apply more traditional custody patterns.
-
Evaluate your work schedule realistically. A 50-50 presumption only benefits parents who can actually exercise equal time. Courts scrutinize logistics: school proximity, work hours, and childcare arrangements.
-
Address any domestic violence concerns immediately. S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240(B)(15) makes domestic violence a mandatory consideration, and HB 4622 preserves the court's authority to rebut the 50-50 presumption on those grounds. Document any protective orders or incidents with counsel.
-
Follow the legislative process. HB 4622 and HB 3085 are under active amendment. The version that ultimately passes — if any — may look very different from the current draft.
Frequently Asked Questions
Closing Thoughts
If you are navigating a custody case in South Carolina, the current best-interest framework under S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240 governs your matter — not HB 4622. Consult an experienced South Carolina family law attorney to build a parenting case tailored to the law as it stands today, while staying informed about legislative developments that could reshape the landscape.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.