Download This Bill in Microsoft Word format
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
H. 4446
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
Sponsors: Reps. Taylor, Altman, Bingham, Townsend, Davenport, Toole and Clark
Document Path: l:\council\bills\pt\1754ahb04.doc
Companion/Similar bill(s): 775
Introduced in the House on January 13, 2004
Currently residing in the House Committee on Judiciary
Summary: Custody and visitation records and recordings
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/3/2003 House Prefiled
12/3/2003 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary
1/13/2004 House Introduced and read first time HJ-76
1/13/2004 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary HJ-76
2/4/2004 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Bingham
2/5/2004 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Townsend
2/10/2004 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Davenport, Toole
2/18/2004 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Clark
View the latest legislative information at the LPITS web site
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL
TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-1540 SO AS TO PROVIDE IN CUSTODY AND VISITATION CASES LITIGANTS ARE ENTITLED TO A VERBATIM COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT AND THAT THE COST OF THE TRANSCRIPT MAY NOT EXCEED TWO DOLLARS PER PAGE; TO ADD SECTION 20-7-1541 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SUPREME COURT BY RULE MUST ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR THE STORAGE OF TAPES OR OTHER SONIC RECORDINGS IN A GOVERNMENT FACILITY; AND TO ADD SECTION 20-7-1542 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A PARTY IN A CUSTODY OR VISITATION PROCEEDING TO RECORD THE PROCEEDING IF THERE IS NO ACTIVE INTERFERENCE WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING.
Whereas, the General Assembly finds that the costs to litigants for custody and visitation cases in family court have skyrocketed; and
Whereas, the costs of a custody or visitation proceeding may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and other costs; and
Whereas, litigants who need copies of their family court transcripts often find themselves unable to afford the cost of a transcript after having paid thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and other costs; and
Whereas, the cost of family court transcripts should be reasonable and affordable to all litigants; and
Whereas, due process and general principles of fairness require that all transcripts be accurate reflections of the proceedings and therefore should be verbatim records of such proceedings; and
Whereas, Section 14-15-30 of the 1976 Code requires that court stenographers "take full stenographic notes of all proceedings", many litigants find that the transcripts from their cases are not accurate records of such proceedings; and
Whereas, family court reporters are paid a salary by the State of South Carolina to record court proceedings, and thus the tapes or other sonic recordings of such proceedings are the property of the State and should be safeguarded as such; and
Whereas, tapes of family court proceedings are customarily stored at the court reporter's discretion at a private residence or other location, and often under a bed or in a closet; and
Whereas, this current method of storage subjects the State's property to loss by inadvertent destruction by fire, theft, action of a member of the court reporter's family, or by other casualty; and
Whereas, the General Assembly recognizes that transcriptions are often performed at locations other than the courthouse, and that tapes or other sonic recordings may necessarily be utilized by the court reporter away from court premises; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court should establish through rule a system or other procedure whereby the tapes or other sonic recordings are accounted for through a "check out and return" system, similar to that utilized by libraries in this State, so that the tapes are more closely protected and safeguarded, and that the tapes remain on the courthouse premises or in other governmentally-controlled facilities until a transcript is requested by a litigant, and that the tapes or other sonic recordings be returned by the court reporter, upon completion of the transcript, to the courthouse or other governmental premises as directed by the court; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court should provide by rule for an expedited procedure for the correction of inaccurate transcripts upon proof of error in order to protect the due process rights of litigants. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Subarticle 1, Article 11, Chapter 7, Title 20 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 20-7-1540. (A) In all custody and visitation cases, litigants are entitled to transcripts which are, as virtually possible, a verbatim copy of the proceedings.
(B) Notwithstanding another provision of law, except for subsection (C), the cost of a transcript of a court proceeding for custody or visitation may not exceed two dollars per page, double-spaced.
(C) In cases where the transcript is requested and delivered within ten days, the cost may not exceed four dollars per page.
(D) The Supreme Court shall provide by rule for an expedited procedure for the correction of any inaccurate transcript.
Section 20-7-1541. (A) Except as provided in subsection (B), tapes and other sonic recordings utilized in family court are the property of the State and must be stored in a secure place in a government facility.
(B) Tapes may be checked out by court reporters for use in transcription by a written or electronic system as established by the Supreme Court, but must be immediately returned upon the completion of the transcription.
(C) The Supreme Court shall establish rules to conform to the provisions of this section.
Section 20-7-1542. (A) A litigant in a custody or visitation proceeding is entitled to record the proceeding in which he is a party by means of a tape recorder or other means of sonic reproduction, if in recording, there is no active interference with the conduct of the proceeding.
(B) The court is not required to furnish recording equipment to a litigant.
(C) The Supreme Court shall establish rules to conform to the provisions of this section."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
This web page was last updated on Monday, December 7, 2009 at 10:36 A.M.