NOTE: The federal Title IV-D child support program was designed to help children, not line officials’ pockets. But in South Carolina, indictments against former clerks Sharon Staggers and Becky Hill expose a darker reality — federal “incentive” dollars fueling corruption. Prosecutors say Staggers siphoned $120,000 and Hill misused $20,000, both from Title IV-D funds. Critics argue the program rewards aggressive enforcement, inflated orders, and contempt threats — turning child support into a cash machine for courts and agencies. For fathers like William Sewell, these revelations raise serious questions about whether profit, not justice, drives family court decisions.
This piece was first published on Justice Denied: The Court Chronicles.
By any measure, the Title IV-D child support enforcement program was never meant to be a get-rich-quick scheme for government insiders. Enacted under the federal Social Security Act, Title IV-D was sold to the public as a way to help establish paternity, collect child support, and ensure children receive needed resources.
But in South Carolina, the reality looks far darker — a pipeline of federal dollars flowing straight into the pockets of those entrusted to safeguard them, often under the thin disguise of “incentives.”
Two Clerks, Two Scandals
The latest headlines tell the story.
On August 13, 2024, the South Carolina State Grand Jury indicted former Williamsburg County Clerk of Court Sharon Staggers on ten felony counts — alleging she siphoned nearly $120,000 in public funds between 2019 and 2023. Her alleged method? Diverting Title IV-D funds and paying herself “incentive” bonuses.
She’s charged with:
- Misconduct in office
- Multiple counts of embezzlement over and under $10,000
- Violating the State Ethics Act for personal financial gain
- Accepting things of value to influence official actions
If convicted, Staggers could face decades behind bars.
But she’s not alone. Mary Rebecca “Becky” Hill, the former Colleton County Clerk of Court who became a national figure during the Alex Murdaugh murder trial, is accused of misusing nearly $20,000 in Title IV-D funds — on top of unrelated criminal charges. The South Carolina Ethics Commission says she treated these federal dollars like her personal petty cash drawer.
The Bigger Problem: The Title IV-D Incentive Machine
While the media loves a good “corrupt clerk” story, the real scandal is systemic. Title IV-D is funded in part by the federal government based on how much child support is collected. That means the more the state squeezes parents — overwhelmingly fathers — for payments, the more “incentive” dollars flow back to state agencies and judicial offices.
In practice, this creates a perverse profit motive:
- Over-assessment of support based on inflated income figures
- Refusal to adjust orders even when a paying parent’s circumstances change
- Aggressive enforcement measures — license suspensions, contempt hearings, even jail — that can destroy livelihoods and make repayment impossible
These “incentives” aren’t hypothetical — they show up as budget line items, bonuses, and, as these indictments reveal, sometimes straight into personal bank accounts.
Judges and Immunity — The Loophole Problem
Officials often hide behind “judicial immunity” or “quasi-judicial immunity” to avoid lawsuits. But here’s the catch: Title IV-D enforcement is an administrative program, not a judicial function. That means the debt-collection style tactics used to extract payments fall under the scope of federal consumer protection laws — including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
This is not just a legal technicality. If these funds are being misused, the immunity shield could crumble — opening the door to civil lawsuits and class actions.
Why This Matters Beyond Williamsburg and Colleton Counties
What’s happening in South Carolina is not isolated. This incentive-driven enforcement model has been criticized nationwide for:
- Turning child support into a revenue stream rather than a child-focused program
- Incentivizing overreach, false paternity cases, and unnecessary litigation
- Penalizing low-income fathers in ways that ultimately hurt children
And now, with public officials being indicted for literally pocketing the proceeds, it’s clear this isn’t just a policy flaw — it’s an open cash register.
How This Potentially Impacts William Sewell’s Case
William Sewell’s case sits squarely in the same Title IV-D ecosystem:
- His custody and support litigation has been handled in a court system that directly benefits financially from maximizing child support orders and aggressive enforcement.
- If clerks and judicial actors in South Carolina are misusing Title IV-D funds for personal gain — as the Staggers and Hill indictments allege — it bolsters an argument that financial incentives, not justice, may be influencing outcomes in his case.
- If enforcement actions against him (e.g., contempt threats, asset seizures, business liquidation) are driven by this revenue-linked model, it could be argued that his due process rights are compromised by a conflict of interest baked into the system.
- The revelation that Title IV-D is administrative — not judicial — weakens immunity defenses and could open a new legal avenue for challenging the fairness of his child support determinations.
In short: these indictments provide real-world, South Carolina-specific proof that the system deciding William Sewell’s fate is financially motivated to rule against him — and that the same revenue stream has already been abused by those in positions of authority.
