Bill
H 3084
Expands oversight of lay guardians ad litem by requiring court appointment of an attorney, with initial fee authorization and judge/party consent for any increases.
Status and key identifiers
- Bill number: H 3084
- Title (as provided): Guardians ad Litem
- Introduced / Prefiled: Prefiled 12/05/2024; introduced and read first time 01/14/2025; referred to Committee on Judiciary 01/14/2025. Additional legislative actions list referral to Revenue (02/27/2025), Senate concurrence (02/27/2025), and a hearing scheduled for 10/28/2025.
- Classification: bill
- Effective date (per text of the guardians ad litem portion): upon approval by the Governor.
Note on source materials
- The materials supplied with H 3084 contain two distinct pieces of legislation bundled in the same file: (1) amendments to South Carolina family‑court statutes concerning guardians ad litem (clearly matching the “Guardians ad Litem” title); and (2) a Massachusetts draft (House Docket No. 4010 / House No. 3084) that would extend certain tax‑credit definitions and provisions to include “video games.” This summary focuses primarily on the guardians ad litem provisions (title‑consistent) and then provides a brief note about the unrelated video‑game tax‑credit language included in the file.
Part A — Guardians ad Litem (primary provisions)
Purpose and intent
- Increase judicial oversight and formal authorization of attorney representation and fees when a lay guardian ad litem (GAL) is appointed in family‑court proceedings.
Key provisions
- Amends S.C. Code §63‑3‑820(E):
- Confirms that the court may appoint an attorney to represent a lay guardian ad litem.
- Requires that the order appointing that attorney state reasons for the appointment and establish a method for compensating the attorney.
- Specifies that the amount of the attorney’s fee must be authorized by the court pursuant to §63‑3‑850.
- Amends S.C. Code §63‑3‑850(A):
- Requires the family court judge, at the time of appointment of a GAL, to set the method and rate of compensation and to provide an initial authorization of a fee based on case facts.
- If an attorney has been appointed for the GAL, any portion of the fee to compensate that attorney must be included in the initial authorization.
- If the GAL (or appointed attorney) determines the initial fee is insufficient, the GAL must notify both parties and obtain either the judge’s written authorization or the consent of both parties before charging more than the initially authorized fee.
Who is affected
- Family court judges (new explicit obligations when appointing GALs).
- Lay guardians ad litem and any attorneys appointed to represent them (procedural and fee‑authorization requirements).
- Parties to family‑court cases (notification and potential responsibility for consenting to fee increases).
- Potentially the state or local entities that pay GAL/attorney fees, depending on prevailing payment mechanisms.
Practical impact
- Increases court supervision of GAL attorney appointments and fees, aiming to standardize initial fee approvals and require court or party authorization for fee increases.
- May reduce unexpected or unapproved billing; could also impose procedural steps that delay payment or require additional court actions when fees must be increased.
Timing / implementation
- Provision states the act takes effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Part B — Note on unrelated video‑game tax‑credit language included in file
- The same document includes a Massachusetts draft (House Docket No. 4010 / House No. 3084 by Rep. Daniel Donahue) proposing to add “video games” and “video game production company” to multiple places in Chapter 62 and Chapter 63 tax provisions (including Section 38X), along with a statutory definition of “video games” and eligibility limitations (e.g., exclusion for gambling products; ownership restrictions tied to Commonwealth loan defaults). That text would expand existing tax incentives (previously for motion pictures) to apply to video‑game production. Because this language appears to be a separate policy proposal from a different jurisdiction, confirm with the legislative clerk or bill sponsor which text is the official H 3084 version for your jurisdiction.
If you want, I can:
- Produce a one‑page comparative summary isolating only the SC GAL changes; or
- Produce a one‑page summary focused exclusively on the Massachusetts video‑game tax‑credit proposal.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
