Rom Reddy: ‘Slanted Opinion’ on S.C. Family Court Reform

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by ROM REDDY

***

I read Jenn Wood’s article on Lauren Taylor’s very slanted opinion about our new 50/50 parenting bill. The following is my response to Ms. Taylor, who I might point out is billed as a “prominent state attorney.”

Ms. Taylor claims that at a temporary hearing, there is not enough time to present evidence of abuse. The bill does not change the time. The bill simply says that if any evidence of abuse against the child or the spouse is presented, the 50/50 presumption goes away. In today’s system, if any evidence is presented in the limited temporary hearing time, the parent presenting the evidence can be accused of alienation and lose 100 percent custody. Also, roughly 46 percent of the time, false evidence of abuse is presented – often at the recommendation of corrupt lawyers, to gain custody. With a 50/50 presumption, the incentive for false evidence is reduced.

As a lawyer, Ms. Taylor should know that there is a presumption of innocence and that presenting credible evidence to a judge must be the minimum requirement before a parent loses their child. The question Ms. Taylor does not answer is how this bill makes the current system worse for the issues she raises. It does not. In fact, it helps on the one key element she ignores: the incredibly vast bodies of evidence showing that having both parents in a child’s life is the best outcome for the child.

Ms. Taylor defends the existing guardian ad litem system as “most of them are lawyers doing incredibly hard work.” Perhaps she should talk to the parents who are victims of corrupt GALs who team up with equally corrupt lawyers and make life hell for families by removing the parent’s ability to make any decisions for their child. No parent, however much they may dislike each other, wants to give up control of their child’s life to a guardian ad litem system that has no oversight. So Ms. Taylor says the bill is bad because it puts some power back into the parent’s hands by allowing them to petition the judge if a guardian ad litem is not acting in the child’s best interest.

***

RELATED | DOGE SC ROLLS OUT EQUAL PARENTING ACT

***

Seriously? No parent wants to be helpless in the face of the tyranny they experience. And the claim that subjecting GALs to drug tests would lead them to quit is absurd. If that is true, good riddance. Obviously, Ms. Taylor has not personally experienced the tyranny most parents face with these people. She claims 50/50 custody would cause the child to keep changing schools. This is ridiculous and rarely permitted. Besides, most parents would try their best to avoid such disruption to their children.

Ms. Taylor fundamentally believes government can make better decisions for a child than the parents of that child. That is a sad day for a country founded on the dream of a self-governing people.

Are some parents unfit? Of course. That is what DSS and the judges are there to determine. But DSS is a dysfunctional organization that has been weaponized against the citizen, and we already know the issue with how judges are appointed. No question both need reform. But turning over decisions about a child to an uncontrolled government apparatus is not the answer.

Finally, she claims that parents would agree to 50/50 custody to reduce child support but then not show up. Again, we cannot design a system that punishes the vast majority to protect against a small minority. We should put fences around the minority. 50/50 custody is a court order, and if violated should be contempt. Ms. Taylor, as a lawyer, knows that, but she is allowed to pontificate about these things as if she were writing an op-ed.

Overall, it is disappointing that the people who talk most loudly about “the best interest of the child” are often really talking about the best interest of their own pocketbook.

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR…

Rom Reddy, a businessman from Isle of Palms, S.C., is the founder of the DOGE SC movement.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.