• View Larger Image

Joint Custody in South Carolina: When Courts Order Exceptional Arrangements

Joint Custody in South Carolina: When Courts Order Exceptional Arrangements

Scott v. Scott, 354 S.C. 118 (2003) stands as a pivotal decision in South Carolina family law, clarifying when joint custody arrangements may be appropriate despite the state’s general disfavor of divided custody. This Supreme Court case provides crucial guidance for parents navigating contentious custody disputes.

Case Background

John and Deirdre Scott’s divorce centered on custody of their seven-year-old daughter, Caitlyn. The father filed for divorce based on the mother’s adultery and initially received temporary custody. Over two years of litigation followed, marked by rigid visitation disputes and repeated court modifications.

The central question: Should the family court have awarded joint custody when both parents demonstrated problematic behaviors?

South Carolina’s Traditional Approach to Joint Custody

Historically, South Carolina courts have strongly disfavored divided custody arrangements. In Mixson v. Mixson (1969), the Supreme Court established that joint custody is “usually harmful to and not conducive to the best interest and welfare of children.” The Court explained that shuttling children between parents in “brief alternating periods” typically causes:

• Confusion and instability
• Interference with proper training and discipline
• Ongoing conflict between custodians
• Prevention of normal child development

However, the 1996 legislative amendment to S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-420 explicitly granted family courts jurisdiction to “order joint or divided custody where the court finds it is in the best interests of the child.” This statutory change did not eliminate the general disfavor of joint custody but opened the door for such arrangements in appropriate cases.

Exceptional Circumstances Standard

The Scott Court affirmed that joint custody should only be ordered under “exceptional circumstances.” But what constitutes exceptional circumstances?

The Scott Family’s Unique Situation

The family court made detailed findings about both parents:

Both parents were found to be:

• Fit to meet Caitlyn’s basic needs
• Loving and strongly bonded with their daughter
• Guilty of placing their own interests above their children’s interests

Father’s problematic behaviors:

• Inflexible regarding visitation modifications
• Demonstrated “a consistent need to control and exclude”
• Removed child from Brownies after mother attended an event during his weekend
• Threatened the Brownie troop leader

Mother’s problematic behaviors:

• Engaged in adultery during the marriage
• Showed “dependent traits”
• Participated with father in attempting to alienate her older daughter from her biological father

The Critical Finding

The family court determined that awarding sole custody to either parent would seriously compromise Caitlyn’s ability to maintain a normal relationship with the other parent. This finding of mutual parental alienation risk created the exceptional circumstances justifying joint custody.

The Joint Custody Arrangement

The family court ordered custody to alternate every four weeks between parents, with the non-custodial parent receiving weekend visitation during their off-weeks. The parents lived only five blocks apart, minimizing disruption to Caitlyn’s routine.

The Supreme Court emphasized that four-week intervals were not the “brief alternating periods” condemned in Mixson. This extended timeframe distinguished the arrangement from week-to-week or day-to-day custody schedules that courts have routinely rejected.

Lessons from Sanders v. Sanders

The Supreme Court drew parallels to Sanders v. Sanders (1958), where divided custody alternating every six months was affirmed. In Sanders, the Court acknowledged that divided custody was “probably not the perfect solution” but represented “the best one possible from the standpoint of the children’s welfare” when both fit parents loved their children but demonstrated selfish behavior.

The Scott Court adopted similar reasoning, noting that joint custody “sheds a ray of hope” on the future relationship between these parents and their daughter, provided both parents obey “the letter and the spirit” of the decree.

Additional Holdings

Restraining Order on Overnight Guests

The family court’s order prohibited both parents from having contact with “a member of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage” in the children’s presence between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. The Supreme Court reversed this provision as overly broad and unreasonable.

Following Jackson v. Jackson (1983), the Court explained that even if intended to prevent exposure to romantic partners, the restriction was too broad because it could prevent children from having their own friends sleep over. Courts may not impose such sweeping restrictions without specific findings that a particular person would adversely affect the child’s welfare.

Attorney’s Fees

The Court affirmed the family court’s denial of the mother’s request for attorney’s fees, noting that such awards are discretionary and should not be overturned absent abuse of discretion.

Practical Implications for South Carolina Parents

When Joint Custody May Be Appropriate

Scott v. Scott establishes that joint custody in South Carolina requires:

1. Exceptional circumstances beyond ordinary custody disputes
2. Evidence that sole custody would harm the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent
3. Both parents being fit and capable of meeting the child’s basic needs
4. Sufficient geographic proximity to minimize disruption
5. Meaningful time periods (not brief alternating schedules)
6. Strong bonds between the child and both parents

When Joint Custody Remains Disfavored

Courts will typically reject joint custody when:

• Parents live far apart
• The custody schedule would require frequent transitions
• One parent is demonstrably more fit than the other
• The child’s routine and stability would be significantly disrupted
• The schedule interferes with the school term
• Only one parent shows capacity for parental alienation

The Best Interest Standard Prevails

Despite the general disfavor of joint custody, the controlling factor remains the best interest of the child. As the Court emphasized in Parris v. Parris (1995), “the totality of the circumstances peculiar to each case constitutes the only scale upon which the ultimate decision can be weighed.”

Strategic Considerations for Custody Litigation

For Parents Seeking Joint Custody

• Document the other parent’s history of controlling behavior or parental alienation
• Demonstrate your flexibility and willingness to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent
• Maintain geographic proximity when possible
• Propose meaningful time periods (multiple weeks rather than frequent transitions)
• Emphasize the child’s strong bonds with both parents

For Parents Opposing Joint Custody

• Highlight any fitness concerns about the other parent
• Document stability advantages of sole custody
• Show practical difficulties with the proposed arrangement
• Demonstrate your track record as primary caretaker
• Present evidence that you facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent

The Role of the Guardian Ad Litem

In Scott, the GAL initially recommended custody to mother but acknowledged the case was an “extremely close call” and stated he had “no problem” with joint custody given the circumstances. The GAL’s testimony about the child’s strong bonds with both parents and their close geographic proximity supported the joint custody arrangement.

Current Status of Joint Custody Law

While Scott v. Scott remains good law, family courts continue to view joint custody arrangements cautiously. The decision does not signal a shift toward favoring joint custody but rather acknowledges that exceptional cases may require creative solutions to protect children’s relationships with both parents.

Subsequent Court of Appeals decisions have continued to emphasize that joint custody is appropriate only in limited circumstances. Parents considering joint custody should understand that the burden remains on demonstrating exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the preference for sole custody with liberal visitation.

Conclusion

Scott v. Scott provides a roadmap for the rare cases where joint custody serves a child’s best interests despite South Carolina’s traditional disfavor of such arrangements. The case stands for the proposition that when both fit parents demonstrate capacity for parental alienation, and sole custody would likely destroy the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent, joint custody may represent the best available option.

However, this decision should not be read as an invitation to seek joint custody in typical divorce cases. The Supreme Court made clear that the circumstances in Scott were exceptional, involving parents who both loved their child but consistently placed their own needs above hers. The four-week alternating schedule represented an attempt to salvage the child’s relationship with both parents when no better solution existed.

For South Carolina parents facing custody disputes, Scott v. Scott underscores the paramount importance of putting children’s interests first, facilitating relationships with both parents, and demonstrating flexibility rather than rigid control. Courts will reward cooperative parenting and may impose joint custody as a last resort when neither parent demonstrates the ability to foster the child’s relationship with the other.

Klok Law Firm LLC represents clients in complex family court matters throughout South Carolina. If you are facing a custody dispute or need guidance on joint custody arrangements, contact our Charleston office for a consultation.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every custody case is unique and requires individualized legal analysis.

By Suzanne Klok|2025-11-12T17:53:24+00:00January 12th, 2023|best interest of the child, Child Custody, Family Law, Joint Custody, Sole Custody|Comments Off on Joint Custody in South Carolina: When Courts Order Exceptional Arrangements

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: Suzanne Klok

Related Posts

What to Wear to South Carolina Family Court Hearings

South Carolina Rule 21 Updates 2025: Temporary Hearings

Passport Provisions in SC Custody Orders: Complete Guide for Parents

Answering Discovery in SC Family Court: What You Must Know

Supreme Court Clarifies “Timely” Rule 59(e) Motions in Family Court

Joint Custody in South Carolina: When Courts Order Exceptional Arrangements

Scott v. Scott, 354 S.C. 118 (2003) stands as a pivotal decision in South Carolina family law, clarifying when joint custody arrangements may be appropriate despite the state’s general disfavor of divided custody. This Supreme Court case provides crucial guidance for parents navigating contentious custody disputes.

Case Background

John and Deirdre Scott’s divorce centered on custody of their seven-year-old daughter, Caitlyn. The father filed for divorce based on the mother’s adultery and initially received temporary custody. Over two years of litigation followed, marked by rigid visitation disputes and repeated court modifications.

The central question: Should the family court have awarded joint custody when both parents demonstrated problematic behaviors?

South Carolina’s Traditional Approach to Joint Custody

Historically, South Carolina courts have strongly disfavored divided custody arrangements. In Mixson v. Mixson (1969), the Supreme Court established that joint custody is “usually harmful to and not conducive to the best interest and welfare of children.” The Court explained that shuttling children between parents in “brief alternating periods” typically causes:

• Confusion and instability
• Interference with proper training and discipline
• Ongoing conflict between custodians
• Prevention of normal child development

However, the 1996 legislative amendment to S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-420 explicitly granted family courts jurisdiction to “order joint or divided custody where the court finds it is in the best interests of the child.” This statutory change did not eliminate the general disfavor of joint custody but opened the door for such arrangements in appropriate cases.

Exceptional Circumstances Standard

The Scott Court affirmed that joint custody should only be ordered under “exceptional circumstances.” But what constitutes exceptional circumstances?

The Scott Family’s Unique Situation

The family court made detailed findings about both parents:

Both parents were found to be:

• Fit to meet Caitlyn’s basic needs
• Loving and strongly bonded with their daughter
• Guilty of placing their own interests above their children’s interests

Father’s problematic behaviors:

• Inflexible regarding visitation modifications
• Demonstrated “a consistent need to control and exclude”
• Removed child from Brownies after mother attended an event during his weekend
• Threatened the Brownie troop leader

Mother’s problematic behaviors:

• Engaged in adultery during the marriage
• Showed “dependent traits”
• Participated with father in attempting to alienate her older daughter from her biological father

The Critical Finding

The family court determined that awarding sole custody to either parent would seriously compromise Caitlyn’s ability to maintain a normal relationship with the other parent. This finding of mutual parental alienation risk created the exceptional circumstances justifying joint custody.

The Joint Custody Arrangement

The family court ordered custody to alternate every four weeks between parents, with the non-custodial parent receiving weekend visitation during their off-weeks. The parents lived only five blocks apart, minimizing disruption to Caitlyn’s routine.

The Supreme Court emphasized that four-week intervals were not the “brief alternating periods” condemned in Mixson. This extended timeframe distinguished the arrangement from week-to-week or day-to-day custody schedules that courts have routinely rejected.

Lessons from Sanders v. Sanders

The Supreme Court drew parallels to Sanders v. Sanders (1958), where divided custody alternating every six months was affirmed. In Sanders, the Court acknowledged that divided custody was “probably not the perfect solution” but represented “the best one possible from the standpoint of the children’s welfare” when both fit parents loved their children but demonstrated selfish behavior.

The Scott Court adopted similar reasoning, noting that joint custody “sheds a ray of hope” on the future relationship between these parents and their daughter, provided both parents obey “the letter and the spirit” of the decree.

Additional Holdings

Restraining Order on Overnight Guests

The family court’s order prohibited both parents from having contact with “a member of the opposite sex not related by blood or marriage” in the children’s presence between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. The Supreme Court reversed this provision as overly broad and unreasonable.

Following Jackson v. Jackson (1983), the Court explained that even if intended to prevent exposure to romantic partners, the restriction was too broad because it could prevent children from having their own friends sleep over. Courts may not impose such sweeping restrictions without specific findings that a particular person would adversely affect the child’s welfare.

Attorney’s Fees

The Court affirmed the family court’s denial of the mother’s request for attorney’s fees, noting that such awards are discretionary and should not be overturned absent abuse of discretion.

Practical Implications for South Carolina Parents

When Joint Custody May Be Appropriate

Scott v. Scott establishes that joint custody in South Carolina requires:

1. Exceptional circumstances beyond ordinary custody disputes
2. Evidence that sole custody would harm the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent
3. Both parents being fit and capable of meeting the child’s basic needs
4. Sufficient geographic proximity to minimize disruption
5. Meaningful time periods (not brief alternating schedules)
6. Strong bonds between the child and both parents

When Joint Custody Remains Disfavored

Courts will typically reject joint custody when:

• Parents live far apart
• The custody schedule would require frequent transitions
• One parent is demonstrably more fit than the other
• The child’s routine and stability would be significantly disrupted
• The schedule interferes with the school term
• Only one parent shows capacity for parental alienation

The Best Interest Standard Prevails

Despite the general disfavor of joint custody, the controlling factor remains the best interest of the child. As the Court emphasized in Parris v. Parris (1995), “the totality of the circumstances peculiar to each case constitutes the only scale upon which the ultimate decision can be weighed.”

Strategic Considerations for Custody Litigation

For Parents Seeking Joint Custody

• Document the other parent’s history of controlling behavior or parental alienation
• Demonstrate your flexibility and willingness to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent
• Maintain geographic proximity when possible
• Propose meaningful time periods (multiple weeks rather than frequent transitions)
• Emphasize the child’s strong bonds with both parents

For Parents Opposing Joint Custody

• Highlight any fitness concerns about the other parent
• Document stability advantages of sole custody
• Show practical difficulties with the proposed arrangement
• Demonstrate your track record as primary caretaker
• Present evidence that you facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent

The Role of the Guardian Ad Litem

In Scott, the GAL initially recommended custody to mother but acknowledged the case was an “extremely close call” and stated he had “no problem” with joint custody given the circumstances. The GAL’s testimony about the child’s strong bonds with both parents and their close geographic proximity supported the joint custody arrangement.

Current Status of Joint Custody Law

While Scott v. Scott remains good law, family courts continue to view joint custody arrangements cautiously. The decision does not signal a shift toward favoring joint custody but rather acknowledges that exceptional cases may require creative solutions to protect children’s relationships with both parents.

Subsequent Court of Appeals decisions have continued to emphasize that joint custody is appropriate only in limited circumstances. Parents considering joint custody should understand that the burden remains on demonstrating exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the preference for sole custody with liberal visitation.

Conclusion

Scott v. Scott provides a roadmap for the rare cases where joint custody serves a child’s best interests despite South Carolina’s traditional disfavor of such arrangements. The case stands for the proposition that when both fit parents demonstrate capacity for parental alienation, and sole custody would likely destroy the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent, joint custody may represent the best available option.

However, this decision should not be read as an invitation to seek joint custody in typical divorce cases. The Supreme Court made clear that the circumstances in Scott were exceptional, involving parents who both loved their child but consistently placed their own needs above hers. The four-week alternating schedule represented an attempt to salvage the child’s relationship with both parents when no better solution existed.

For South Carolina parents facing custody disputes, Scott v. Scott underscores the paramount importance of putting children’s interests first, facilitating relationships with both parents, and demonstrating flexibility rather than rigid control. Courts will reward cooperative parenting and may impose joint custody as a last resort when neither parent demonstrates the ability to foster the child’s relationship with the other.

Klok Law Firm LLC represents clients in complex family court matters throughout South Carolina. If you are facing a custody dispute or need guidance on joint custody arrangements, contact our Charleston office for a consultation.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every custody case is unique and requires individualized legal analysis.