South Carolina subcommittee advances bill shielding parental treatment of transgender youth amid warnings it could limit abuse protections

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina Senate child-welfare subcommittee on Thursday voted 3–2 to give Senate Bill 540 a favorable report after hours of public testimony warning the measure could prevent the state from protecting children who are harmed.

The bill, as described by legal counsel Quentin Gaddy, would add language to state child-protection statutes clarifying that “raising a child consistent with the child’s [gender identity]” does not constitute child abuse and would add definitions to Section 63-7-20 of the South Carolina code.

Opponents — including a child-abuse pediatrician, foster and adoptive parents, clergy and civil-rights advocates — told the committee the proposed wording could be read as an exception that shields abusive conduct if a parent claims the act was intended to raise the child “consistent with” the child’s gender identity.

“This bill can be read to deny some children the protection from abuse that the state must guarantee to all children,” said Dr. John Melville, a child-abuse pediatrician who leads the South Carolina Child Abuse and Neglect Network. Melville said the statute’s proposed subsection would make parental intent a potential defense even for severe physical abuse, and urged lawmakers to narrow the language or adopt rules of evidence to prevent parental intent from serving as a shield.

Family law attorney Mixed Condon, who said they have represented more than 1,000 families in custody and abuse cases, urged the committee to reject the bill. Condon cited research they attributed to the Trevor Project and said states that passed similar laws saw a rise in suicide attempts among transgender youth; in testimony Condon referenced a figure of a 72 percent increase.

Christina Picozzi, executive director of the Harriet Hancock Center, told lawmakers the measure would remove the courts’ and child-welfare professionals’ discretion to consider whether a parent’s refusal to affirm a child’s gender identity contributes to harm. Jace Woodrum, executive director of ACLU of South Carolina and a foster and adoptive parent, said the measure undermines professionals charged with protecting children and could reduce placement options for LGBTQ youth.

Attorney Jay Elliott, who said he drafted the state’s original Child Protection Act, opposed the bill as unnecessary and legally risky. Elliott cited existing protections in section 63-7-9-50 and warned that the bill could invite frivolous lawsuits and unintentionally protect harmful religious or cult practices.

Reverend Austin Lippert and Sue Berkowitz, founder of South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, also testified in opposition, saying the change would create crises for vulnerable youth and alter when children can be removed for their safety.

Committee members questioned witnesses about the bill’s effect on family-court discretion and the threshold for state intervention — for example, when a child expresses suicidal ideation. Witnesses and lawmakers discussed current statutory language that limits abuse findings in certain medical-withholding cases and debated whether S540 would inappropriately restrict judges from considering all best-interest factors.

After testimony and brief committee discussion, Jay Elliott moved a favorable report; Chairman Senator Mike Rickenbaugh seconded the motion. The chairman counted three ayes and two opposed (including proxies) and said the bill was given a favorable report, not amended.

The subcommittee adjourned without amending the bill. The measure will move to the next committee step in the legislative process.