South Carolina’s Gil Gatch, a minister with a law degree from Georgetown, is on a crusade to reform family courts. He unloads on guardian ad litem abuses and charts a course for legislative change.
NOTE: Watch the full interview with South Carolina State Representative Gil Gatch on YouTube and Rumble.
By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe
Guardians Ad Litem: Too Much Power, Too Little Oversight
A family is often at the mercy of a court-appointed “guardian.” These guardians ad litem are supposed to look out for children’s best interests, but South Carolina Attorney and State Representative Gil Gatch says they’ve become power brokers in custody fights.
Gatch pulls no punches. The freshman South Carolina lawmaker – a Christian minister and now a Georgetown-educated attorney – says guardians ad litem (GALs) wield outsized influence in family courts.
“In that instance, the guardian has all the power. It’s almost like the guardian is the judge in a lot of circumstances,” Gatch observes, describing how judges defer to GAL recommendations on which parent should get the kids.
By law, South Carolina GALs aren’t even supposed to recommend custody in final trials – but they do it anyway in temporary hearings, effectively deciding cases before a judge ever rules. Gatch calls it a loophole large enough to derail due process. Temporary orders based on a GAL’s early opinions can last months or years, creating a status quo that judges are “very, very hesitant to undo.”
The result? One parent (often the mom) keeps the house, primary custody, and hefty support checks, while the other is sidelined – all because a GAL “put their thumb on the scale” at the start.
Gatch has seen enough.
As an attorney, he watched cozy backroom relationships warp cases. Certain GALs, therapists, and lawyers became “thick as thieves,” chatting off the record and influencing proceedings without the other side being aware of their actions. Shockingly, he says, nothing in South Carolina’s ethics rules forbids a GAL from having private talks with one party’s attorney about a case.
“That’s not banned… you can do whatever the heck you want,” Gatch notes in disbelief.
He routinely demands copies of all communications between the GAL and the opposing counsel – but knows many deals are cut in the shadows. Judges won’t intervene.
“It’s very difficult to get a judge to sign on to the idea that a guardian ad litem is acting biased,” Gatch says.
Even when a GAL flagrantly crosses lines, accountability is scant. In one case, an attorney-GAL secretly recorded his client (a violation of legal ethics) and used it to strip her of custody. The judge shrugged, telling Gatch to report it to the state disciplinary board. But the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) claimed it “doesn’t have jurisdiction over guardians” acting in that role – effectively giving rogue GALs a free pass.
After seeing GALs play judge, jury, and social engineer, Gatch is firing back with reform bills. One bill would ban GALs from giving custody recommendations at any stage of a case, closing the temporary-hearing loophole. Another targets the off-record scheming: it would prohibit ex parte communications between GALs and one side’s lawyers, forcing all case discussions into the open.
Perhaps Gatch’s boldest moves aim to put teeth back into oversight. He wants non-attorney GALs answerable to the ODC, just like other lawyers. And for non-attorney guardians, he’s pushing to revive an old statute that allowed parents to sue GALs for gross negligence.
“If a guardian commits gross negligence… they could be subject to civil liability,” he insists, noting that such liability was law in South Carolina until 2008, when it was inexplicably dropped.
Bringing back the threat of lawsuits and professional discipline will create a much-needed “disincentive” for bad actors, Gatch argues. In plain terms, no more immunity for GALs who wreck families: mess up egregiously, and pay the price.
As a legislator, Gatch sees himself restoring balance – stripping unchecked power from GALs and reaffirming that the real judge is the one on the bench, not the “eyes and ears of the court” who’ve grown too cozy with authority.
“Judges are the ones in the robe, not guardian ad litems,” he says firmly.
His message to fellow lawmakers is just as blunt: fix these flaws or more families will be railroaded by the very advocates meant to protect them.
Fast Track vs. Ad Hoc: What’s the Best Path to Reform?
Gatch’s crusade raises a big question: how do you actually reform a broken system? Do you muscle bills through the normal committee process, or convene special investigatory panels to build momentum first? Gatch favors the fast track. South Carolina’s House already has a standing Family Court Law Subcommittee, and he wants his reforms heard now.
“My bill never got a committee hearing… we haven’t had the opportunity to talk about it,” he laments.
Delaying with a separate “study committee” is a mistake, in his view.
“If you do an ad hoc committee, you’re talking about like six months. I might not be elected again by the time we get done,” Gatch quips.
He suspects that politicians who secretly oppose reform will hide behind an ad hoc process to stall.
“If you’re not for the reform, you’re gonna say, ‘Oh, let’s have an ad hoc committee so that we can delay the process,’” Gatch says, warning that leadership can stack a special committee with insiders who cherry-pick testimony.
Unlike a normal subcommittee hearing – where “anybody can speak” from the public – an ad hoc panel gives its chair the power to decide who gets the mic. Gatch doesn’t trust that; too often, it means critical voices are silenced and controversial ideas are buried.
The safer bet, he argues, is to debate bills in the standing subcommittee, on the record and on camera, and vote. Get reforms in front of the legislature ASAP, he urges, before the system finds another way to bury them.
Reformers in other states have tried the opposite approach: high-profile Ad Hoc Committees to investigate family court failures before crafting legislation. In Arizona and Idaho, lawmakers chose sunlight over speed, and the results have been dramatic thus far.
Arizona’s Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders held a series of five hearings in 2025 that shed light on systemic dysfunction. Co-chaired by Sen. Mark Finchem and Rep. Rachel Keshel, the Arizona panel opened the floodgates to public testimony. Dozens of parents, experts, and advocates packed hearing rooms; 33 speakers signed up on the first day alone.
For months, heartbreaking stories poured in – of children taken from safe parents, of “reunification therapy” camps that feel more like abduction, of GALs and court appointees charging outrageous fees while enjoying near-total immunity.
“Judges do what they want. And that’s a problem,” Rep. Keshel declared during one hearing, echoing what many parents feel.
The committee’s October 2025 report spared no one: it found that court-ordered reunification programs lack any scientific basis and often cost families $15,000 or more.
It blasted the routine appointment of GALs and therapists with little oversight, questioned why these “experts” have quasi-judicial immunity, and highlighted horrific safety failures – including a chilling case of two children (ages 6 and 7) murdered by their father after the court ignored repeated warnings.
The spotlight worked.
Sen. Finchem says the panel’s work will yield 9 to 12 reform bills in the next session, from banning dubious reunification camps to capping fees and stripping immunity from court players. In short, Arizona’s ad hoc route gave reformers a megaphone and put the establishment on notice.
Idaho saw a similar grassroots groundswell. In 2025, a legislative Child Custody and Domestic Relations Task Force (effectively an ad hoc committee) traveled across Idaho, taking emotional testimony from parents in high-conflict custody battles.
“We knew this would open up a can of worms,” said Rep. Heather Scott, the co-chair, “but… you can’t ignore it, and there does need to be oversight.”
Over five statewide meetings, Idahoans vented about drawn-out temporary orders and abusers gaming the system. By November, Sen. Tammy Nichols and colleagues had a slate of fixes on the table: better training for judges on domestic violence, recognizing coercive control as abuse, time limits on temporary custody orders, and ensuring no one has to mediate face-to-face with an abuser.
One Idaho lawmaker, Rep. Barbara Ehardt, didn’t mince words after seeing how long “temporary” orders were keeping parents from their kids.
“I feel like we have legalized kidnapping,” she said, blasting a system that can sever parental rights with no criminal finding.
Such frank talk would not have hit the headlines without the ad hoc fact-finding process. The Idaho task force, like Arizona’s, can’t pass laws itself – but it catalyzed a broad consensus that reforms are urgently needed.
As one Idaho senator noted, it’s a “great place to start” if it leads to laws leveling the playing field.
Both approaches – the standing subcommittee and the special ad hoc committee – have strengths and pitfalls. We break them down here:
| Approach | Standing Subcommittee (Fast Track) | Ad Hoc Committee/Task Force (Fact-Finding First) |
|---|---|---|
| Speed & Timing | Uses regular legislative process – can debate and amend bills in the current session. No extended study delay. | Often, an interim process takes 6 months or more of hearings & investigation before laws are drafted—risks of delaying action until future sessions. |
| Public Input | Any citizen can testify at official hearings, with an open microphone for stakeholders. Public input occurs during bill hearings (if scheduled). | Conducts dedicated public hearings statewide; invites extensive testimony from parents, experts, and agencies. The chair controls the speaker list, which can limit who is heard if misused. |
| Control & Transparency | Chaired by standing committee leaders. The process is on the record, often livestreamed—there is less risk of cherry-picking testimony since hearings follow normal rules. | Chaired by appointed members who may be allies or skeptics of reform. It can shine a light on hidden problems, but can also be steered by leadership to shape the narrative. Transparency depends on the chair’s fairness. |
| Outcome | If the majority supports, bills can be voted out of committee directly to the floor. A faster route to enacting the law if a consensus exists. | Yields a report with findings and recommended bills. Can build momentum and public pressure. Actual legislation comes later, and must still go through regular committees. |
| Risk Factors | Bills can be stonewalled – e.g., never given a hearing or vote by committee chairs who oppose reform. Without fanfare, reforms may die quietly. | Recommendations can be ignored by leadership once the media spotlight fades. An ad hoc chair could stall the final report or dilute proposals. No guarantee recommendations will become law. |
Which model works best?
In truth, both – and neither.
A standing subcommittee can act fast… or bury a bill in silence. An ad hoc committee can galvanize public support… or run out the clock. It all depends on the backbone of the lawmakers involved.
Rep. Gatch and his allies in South Carolina want a straight shot at reform through the usual channels. In Arizona, Finchem and Keshel harnessed an ad hoc panel to shame the establishment into action. In Idaho, Nichols and Scott established a task force to allow citizens to be heard and to guide their next steps.
Each path requires political will and follow-through.
At the end of the day, the real deciding factor isn’t the committee structure – it’s the people in charge. Lawmakers like Gatch, Finchem, Keshel, and Nichols have lit the fuse on reform.
Now they must deliver. Results are the only true test.
Will they stay the course and push bold changes into law, or will entrenched interests slow-walk and sandbag until the public’s attention wanes? The answer will be seen in the coming legislative sessions.
Voters and families will be watching. Parents who have lost faith in the family courts are demanding results. Whichever route legislators take, they must conduct the process with complete transparency, welcome public scrutiny, and summon the courage to confront those who protect the status quo.
Finishing what they started – that is the true test.
In Gatch’s words, it’s time to “get the change” and ensure that no more children are lost in a system meant to save them.
