By Michael Phillips | Father & Co.

South Carolina lawmakers are preparing to debate a bill that supporters say could save lives by recognizing non-physical abuse. But for parents — especially fathers navigating custody court — the proposal raises serious questions about due process, fairness, and how easily allegations can reshape a family’s future.

Senate Bill 702 (S. 702), set for consideration when the General Assembly convenes in January 2026, would formally recognize “coercive control” as a form of domestic abuse under South Carolina law. While the concept is rooted in real and devastating experiences of psychological abuse, its introduction into family court — where proof standards are low and consequences are high — could fundamentally alter custody disputes.

What the Bill Would Do

S. 702, sponsored by Sen. Stephen Goldfinch (R–Murrells Inlet), does not create a new felony offense. Instead, it quietly embeds coercive control across South Carolina’s legal system — including family court.

Under the bill, coercive control is defined as a pattern of behavior that unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will or personal liberty, including:

• Isolation from friends, family, or support systems
• Control of finances, communication, or daily activities
• Monitoring or tracking through devices
• Intimidation, degradation, or threats

The bill would:

• Expand the definition of “household member” to include current or former dating relationships
• Make coercive control unlawful under domestic violence statutes
• Add coercive control, stalking, and harassment as grounds for divorce
• Require family court judges to consider allegations of coercive control when deciding child custody and “best interests of the child”

For parents in custody disputes, that last point matters most.

Why Family Court Is Different

In criminal court, accusations must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In family court, the standard is much lower: preponderance of the evidence — essentially, whichever story seems more likely.

That means under S. 702:

• No arrest is required
• No criminal charge is required
• No conviction is required

An allegation alone — if believed — could influence custody, visitation, protective orders, and parenting time.

For fathers already familiar with how family court operates, this raises immediate red flags.

Real Abuse Exists — But So Does Misuse

There is no question that psychological abuse is real and damaging. Many parents — men and women — have lived through isolation, manipulation, and control that never left visible bruises.

But family court is also a system where:

• Allegations are often strategic
• Emotions run high
• Custody can hinge on credibility rather than evidence

Critics of S. 702 warn that vague standards like “unreasonable interference” and “pattern of behavior” could easily be weaponized in contentious divorces. Arguments over finances, communication, parenting styles, or household rules — common in failing marriages — could be reframed as abuse.

Online reaction to coverage of the bill has been overwhelmingly skeptical, with many commenters warning that it could “ruin lives” or “hand custody battles to whoever accuses first.”

Due Process Concerns for Parents

For fathers, the concern isn’t just theoretical. Family court already operates with limited procedural protections:

• Temporary orders can restrict access to children immediately
• Accused parents often must prove innocence rather than the accuser proving harm
• Judges are required to act “out of caution,” even when evidence is thin

S. 702 would require judges to consider coercive control in custody decisions — effectively elevating allegations to a decisive factor, even when they would not meet criminal standards.

This raises serious due-process questions:

• How does a parent disprove a “pattern” of behavior?
• What safeguards exist against false or exaggerated claims?
• How will judges distinguish abuse from high-conflict but mutual disputes?

Lessons From Other Jurisdictions

Supporters cite states like California and Connecticut, which have adopted similar concepts. Critics point to the United Kingdom, where coercive-control laws have proven difficult to enforce consistently, with outcomes often depending on interpretation rather than clear evidence.

The lesson for parents is not that psychological abuse should be ignored — but that broad, subjective laws applied in family court can produce unintended and irreversible harm.

A Question Fathers Should Be Asking

For Father & Co., the core question isn’t whether coercive control exists.

It’s this:

Should allegations that cannot meet criminal proof standards be allowed to determine whether a parent keeps access to their child?

Many parents would support laws that:

• Require corroboration
• Demand clear evidence
• Protect genuine victims without presuming guilt

But embedding broad definitions into family court — without clear safeguards — risks turning an already adversarial system into one where accusations alone decide outcomes.

What Happens Next

S. 702 currently sits in the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee, with hearings expected early in the 2026 session. While advocacy groups strongly support it, organized opposition has yet to form — a gap that may close quickly once family-law implications become clearer.

For fathers watching from South Carolina and beyond, this bill is worth close attention. Laws like this don’t stay local — they become models.

And in family court, models matter.

---

Keep Father & Co. Free

Father & Co. exists to support parents navigating separation, custody, and systems that are often confusing, isolating, or overwhelming. This work is grounded in lived experience, careful research, and respect for the real stakes families face.

If this article helped you feel less alone, better informed, or more grounded, reader support helps keep these resources free and available to others who need them.

👉 Support Father & Co.

Need help reviewing or organizing court or formal documents?

Father & Co. offers non-legal document review and organization for people representing themselves. This includes clarity, structure, neutral tone, and timeline organization — not legal advice or representation.

👉 View Services

Have a story, experience, or resource to share?

Submissions are reviewed with care and discretion. We respect privacy and handle sensitive information responsibly.

👉 Submit a Story