On September 25, 2024, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a revised order on “Duties of Family Court Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes.” For family court practitioners the modification to the scheduling and conduct of temporary hearings is significant. Subsection six of this order addresses temporary hearings. It directs the chief judge of each family court circuit:
To hold all hearings on motions for temporary relief when there is no order in existence within four weeks of the request for such hearing being filed. To ensure that this timeline is met, the chief judge for administrative purposes, with the assistance of the docketing clerk, shall monitor the scheduling of these matters. “Temporary hearing” means a hearing to decide a motion for temporary relief filed pursuant to Rule 21 of the SCRFC. The moving party shall request the amount of time needed for the temporary hearing. If a moving party requests more than 30 minutes for the hearing, the chief judge must approve the amount of time for the hearing. In all temporary hearings allotted fifteen minutes, each party shall be limited to eight pages of affidavits. In all temporary hearings allotted thirty minutes, each party shall be limited to sixteen pages of affidavits. In any temporary hearing allotted more than thirty minutes, the chief judge may limit the number of pages of affidavits. The page limitation for affidavits excludes proposed parenting plans, financial declarations, attorneys’ fees affidavits, and attachments or exhibits offered only as verification of information in the affidavits. Voluminous attachments or exhibits should be summarized in the manner described in Rule 1006, SCRE.
Essentially the changes to current procedure are as follows:
Requires temporary hearings when there is no order in existence to be held within four weeks of the request for hearing being filed. By its terms this provision do not apply when there is already an order in place, so this provision does not apply to modification cases or attempts to modify a temporary order. However, when there is no order in existence, a party can get his or her day in court in under a month.
Limits the number of pages of affidavits in thirty-minute hearings to sixteen (it keeps the eight page limit for fifteen-minute hearings). Previously there was no order setting a page limit for affidavits for thirty-minute hearings but many family court judges limited parties to eight pages of affidavits for each fifteen minutes of hearing. This page limit does not apply to various documents, including exhibits or attachments to the affidavit. It does clarify that such exhibits or attachments must be “offered only as verification of information in the affidavits,” in order to not count towards the affidavit page limits.
Requires the chief judge’s approval for temporary hearings greater than thirty minutes in length and allows the chief judge to both limit the time and limit the number of pages of affidavits for temporary hearings greater than thirty minutes in length.
In one of my earliest blogs I noted the way South Carolina handles temporary hearings in family court is a large and systemic violation of due process—a subject I have returned to at times. Putting further limitations on a party’s ability to defend such motions makes the due process situation worse. However, having clearly procedures on timelines and page lengths will encourage uniformity in South Carolina family courts.
2 thoughts on Supreme Court’s new administrative order makes important modifications regarding family court temporary hearings
Hmm. I’ll have to take a look to see how this is distinguished from the November 2012 directive — the only distinctions that jump out are (i) the “when no order is in existence” language, and (ii) the addressing of temporary motion hearings of more than 30 minutes. Either way, it’s nice to have the reiteration; we’ll see how much it is followed.
This is absolutely a violation of due process. To limit the amount of evidence we can present so arbitrarily when a person’s home, children, and funds are at stake is simply unjust. The Supreme Court has effectively decreed that a litigant’s fundamental constitutional rights (which are often at issue in family court) don’t matter so much that a judge can be asked to spend the time to read more than 16 pages, and it is barring litigants from presenting a full and fair case or defense on the issues before the court. This seems to me to be one of the proverbial slippery slopes that we’ve started down. First it was 8 pages for 15 minute hearings, now it’s 16 pages on a hearing of any length of time without leave of court. What’s next? Will there be a limit on the amount of evidence that can be offered during a trial? Will we be told we can’t call more than 3 witnesses without leave of court? We already have to get permission from the court to get the amount of time we need for trial in Charleston County — which I’ve had denied in one case, and which will likely result in a mistrial. While uniformity in the rules of practice is a good thing, limiting a litigant’s ability to present their best case to the court is a frightening use of the court’s power.
Hmm. I’ll have to take a look to see how this is distinguished from the November 2012 directive — the only distinctions that jump out are (i) the “when no order is in existence” language, and (ii) the addressing of temporary motion hearings of more than 30 minutes. Either way, it’s nice to have the reiteration; we’ll see how much it is followed.
This is absolutely a violation of due process. To limit the amount of evidence we can present so arbitrarily when a person’s home, children, and funds are at stake is simply unjust. The Supreme Court has effectively decreed that a litigant’s fundamental constitutional rights (which are often at issue in family court) don’t matter so much that a judge can be asked to spend the time to read more than 16 pages, and it is barring litigants from presenting a full and fair case or defense on the issues before the court. This seems to me to be one of the proverbial slippery slopes that we’ve started down. First it was 8 pages for 15 minute hearings, now it’s 16 pages on a hearing of any length of time without leave of court. What’s next? Will there be a limit on the amount of evidence that can be offered during a trial? Will we be told we can’t call more than 3 witnesses without leave of court? We already have to get permission from the court to get the amount of time we need for trial in Charleston County — which I’ve had denied in one case, and which will likely result in a mistrial. While uniformity in the rules of practice is a good thing, limiting a litigant’s ability to present their best case to the court is a frightening use of the court’s power.