Journal of the House of Representatives
of the Second Session of the 110th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 11, 1994

Page Finder Index
| Printed Page 1630, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1650, Feb. 10 |
Printed Page 1640 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. But you can require them to do that?
A. We automatically do that.
Q. Automatically. Good.
A. There are exceptions, of course. If they're self-employed, we don't have any way of withholding, but we do that automatically.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? If not, Judge Barrineau, if you'll be seated. We do have some witnesses and you'll be given the opportunity to reply.
A. All right. Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have two witnesses, Amy and Thomas H. Rockwell.
MR. ROCKWELL: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Before you testify, if it's possible, if the allegations are repetitive, you know, our desire would be to try to summarize them with one witness. If you have separate incidences you want to refer to obviously, we need to hear from both of you. But our desire would be if we could do it through one witness that we would like to hear from that witness.

Again, if you've got separate allegations you want to deal with or if there are separate things you'd like to talk about, we'd be glad to hear from both of you.
MR. ROCKWELL: Why don't you --
MS. ROCKWELL: I really would like for both of us to speak.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. That's fine. And what we'll do is we will hear from Mr. Rockwell first.
MR. ROCKWELL: Right. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rockwell, if you'd come forward please.
MR. ROCKWELL: Rockwell.
THE CHAIRMAN: Rockwell. I'm sorry.
MR. ROCKWELL: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you would please raise your right hand.
THOMAS H. ROCKWELL, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rockwell, Ms. McNamee will ask you some questions and again we do have your summaries with us, the affidavits which have been filed, so we have -- the Committee members do have information on the allegations that you made --
MR. ROCKWELL: Right.
THE CHAIRMAN: -- that you'll be testifying to, so we'll try not to be too repetitive about it because we do have basic information about it. I'm

Printed Page 1641 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
going to turn you over now to Ms. McNamee to ask some specific questions.
JUDGE BARRINEAU: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE BARRINEAU: Are there two affidavits or just one affidavit that's been signed --
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe both --
MS. ROCKWELL: Both --
THE CHAIRMAN: -- have signed one affidavit. Yes, sir.
JUDGE BARRINEAU: Okay, well, I -- that was the only one that I was aware of.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, there are two signatures on the witness affidavit form.
JUDGE BARRINEAU: All right. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
MR. ROCKWELL - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Mr. Rockwell, I understand that your complaints against Judge Barrineau revolve around him placing four children -- Mrs. Rockwell's four children in foster homes; is that correct?
A. That's basically it, but there is a little bit more that has developed since then.
Q. Is it -- it began with this in 1991; is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And that there has been ongoing problems with your situation with the children in foster care with DSS, with the courts, with Judge Barrineau and with the schools; is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. I understand also from your affidavit that you have been held in contempt by Judge Barrineau?
A. Yes, ma'am, on December 13th, 1992.
Q. 1992 or '91?
A. 1991. Excuse me.
Q. And I understand that from your affidavit that you -- that the judge had you arrested or you -- was called -- police were called October 1, 1993 for making some threats to him and his secretary?
A. Allegedly making some threats to his secretary.
Q. All right.
A. But what I -- I've been advised by my attorney to tread lightly on this issue, but there seems to be some discrepancy as whether or not talking to his secretary would constitute a court official or pointing out that the
Printed Page 1642 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
judge -- point out to the newspaper about his hearing cases involving that were instigated by ex-Sheriff Leroy Montgomery.
Q. Just a minute, please, sir.
A. Okay.
Q. And I understand from your complaint that one of the issues that you -- is that DSS put your children in an unsafe home -- foster homes?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. I understand from your complaint that you allege that there is a conflict of interest because the judge and the former sheriff owned property together and that you say the judge ruled on matters concerning that sheriff; is that correct?
A. Yes, I had contact -- we had contact with the Fairfield County Sheriff's Department before the children were ever removed. Sheriff Mont--- ex-Sheriff Montgomery come out to our house four or five times during the month of April of '91. He also came out May 7th, the day the ex parte order was signed. He found no problem that day or he would have taken the children. Numerous times he was out, he found no problem.

Mr. Montgomery and I had a slight, I guess you might call it an altercation that day where we had a disagreement over certain things that he had told my wife's son and then it seems that without benefit of a hospital report, physician's report, medical report and also with DSS files saying that not enough was given for an ex parte order that day that an ex parte order was signed by James -- by Judge Barrineau with James Holcomb initiating it.
Q. Mr. Holcomb is the head of the --
A. Fairfield --
Q. -- Fairfield County DSS; is that correct?
A. -- County director of DSS, yes, ma'am.
Q. And it was their petition -- it was upon their petition that the order was signed; is that correct?
A. It was -- according to Mr. Holcomb and we attempted to get him here. We've attempted to get him in court. It was upon -- Leroy Montgomery also had something to do with that ex parte order.
Q. I understand that your affidavit also complains that the judge failed to enforce DSS working towards the reunification of your family?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And -- well, that is the substance of the complaint as I understood it from the affidavit, Mr. Hodges.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any specific questions from the members about that allegation? All right.

Printed Page 1643 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. For the record, has the panel seen the foster home?
Q. That is part of our record.
A. Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: We do. In fact, while you were -- I was reading your comments. This is summarized under A, is that correct, of the Personal Data questionnaire we have?
A. Yes. Yes, sir. And also has the panel seen the letter sent from Judge Barrineau to my wife dated December 18th, 1993 because he also states in here, and I do quote from this letter, "I was never very comfortable with the foster care situation concerning your children and expressed that opinion to the attorneys in chambers on several occasions."
THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't we do this? Why don't we get copies of that because we don't have it or any of the information that you want us to look at?
A. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't we get copies of that?
A. Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: We'll have someone do that.
SENATOR MOORE: Mr. Chairman?
MS. ROCKWELL: I did supply it to the office, so possibly --
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm sorry. We do have them and we'll make copies of them for the members.
SENATOR MOORE: Mr. --
A. I believe also in your packet of information there, ma'am, you have three copies of the Winnsboro newspaper also.
THE CHAIRMAN: That's the Herald Examiner or Herald --
A. Herald Independent.
THE CHAIRMAN: -- Independent that you referenced?
A. Yes.
SENATOR MOORE: Mr. Chairman?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: It's not in here.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: It's not in our material.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: It's not in our materials.
MS. MCNAMEE: No, what you gentleman have is the affidavit.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: That's all we have is the affidavit.
SENATOR MOORE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I had made some notes. I wanted to ask about the letter to the newspaper, if I may ask Mr. Rockwell.
Printed Page 1644 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:
Q. I know both you and your wife signed the affidavit. Who prepared the affidavit?
A. My wife and I jointly prepared it.
Q. Whose handwriting or the printing is this?
A. It's in my handwriting.
Q. All right, so I'll ask my question of you then, please, sir. Under Character -- you don't have your pages numbered, so I'll just have to refer to a page. I guess the first page after -- the first page beginning the dialog, the narrative?
A. Okay.
Q. You mention a -- that Judge Barrineau despite pending case versus --
A. THR.
Q. -- THR?
A. Myself, yes, sir.
Q. -- publicly wrote to the Herald Independent newspaper. Was that a Letter to the Editor?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's what you've made -- just made mention to that we have a copy of?
MS. MCNAMEE: We are making copies.
A. Yes, my wife wrote two letters to the paper. She wrote one letter, I believe it was December 16th was the print date, which caused Judge Barrineau to respond to us on this letter. But what had happened was the Herald Independent didn't print the entire letter because they said they weren't going to open themselves up to a lawsuit unless we provided proof. Proof being land records showing joint --
Q. All right, sir. Thank you. I just want to make -- that letter because it was referred to and we -- I didn't have it in my packet here, so I wanted to make sure I saw that.

About four or five pages later you say that Judge Barrineau came into court with a preconceived idea to send us to jail. He admits it on the transcript.
A. Yes. And I have that transcript and I'm probably going to be -- my wife and I will probably be the one to suffer because I did not provide it, but I could access that transcript.

It says right in there, it says, you're very lucky you came in with an attorney today because I already had set in my mind that you two were going to jail today for contempt, quote, unquote.
Q. All right. Mr. Chairman, if I may is ask one more quick question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

Printed Page 1645 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. In the signed -- the signature page of your affidavit, our questions about stating any other facts you feel are pertinent to the screening of this judicial candidate and you mention six other references, you make reference to arrest of DSS workers in Aiken County. Would you elaborate a little bit how Judge Barrineau has any involvement in that particular matter or are you just making mention of that as a matter of coincidences or whatever that these things have happened since you filed
-- since your case has been heard?
A. What I'm basically trying to do is that in the newspaper, Judge Barrineau states that I made many false allegations against numerous people in the community, what I'm trying to maintain and I maintained for two and a half years -- I've been ordered to get psychological evaluations for the quote unquote allegations I've made.

I'm allegating (sic) that on March 14th, 1991 and March 18th, 1991 that two DSS workers removed my wife's children from Geiger Elementary in Ridgeway and took them to a train that was stopped on the tracks near Simpson on route 34, that the Fairfield County Sheriff's Department had knowledge of this, that they investigated it and came back with nothing had occurred, that the children kept maintaining that this had occurred and the ex parte order was as a result of an attempt to down our allegations.
Q. All right, sir. Well, I guess my specific question to you under -- you made mention of arrest of DSS workers in Aiken County. I have some real --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- familiar knowledge with that in that the mother whose child died in foster care --
A. Well, some --
Q. -- came to me -- if you'll let me finish my question, then I'll be glad --
A. I'm sorry.
Q. -- to hear your answer.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What involvement in our capacity as screening Judge Barrineau today does the arrest of DSS workers in Aiken County have to do with our questioning him or talking with you and responding?
A. I think that it's not directly tied in because, of course, it's a different judicial circuit, but I think what it does tie in with is that the possibility of wrongdoing by DSS workers is present.

The fact that DSS will cover up for themselves, that DSS will falsify paperwork, that DSS will not act always on reports of abuse in the foster home. My wife and I both made reports of abuse in the foster home. We

Printed Page 1646 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
were told that we had mental problems for making false allegations against people in the community, so I guess, sir, basically what I'm attempting to do to show that, yes, the possibility that my allegations are true, it does exist.
Q. But -- all right, sir. But there is --
A. Yes.
Q. -- nothing directly pertinent to the screening of Judge Barrineau in regards to what's going on as far as DSS workers arrested in Aiken County. You're speaking indirectly?
A. Yes.
Q. But you don't know of anything directly?
A. No, sir.
Q. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Moore. Any other questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Representative Alexander.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q. Where are the children today?
A. They're still in foster care. What was ironic was we tried -- they -- three of them lived in this house. My wife's son lived with another couple. They all want to adopt the children. They've all stated publicly they want to adopt them. They've all worked against my wife and I. They've been dealing with the psychologist.

It took a year and two months to get the case transferred out of Fairfield County, even though my wife and I had moved to a Richland County in July of '91 and now three of the children reside in Lexington County, one other of the children resides in Richland County, but Richland County DSS is supervising this whole deal. So that's another inaccuracy present.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any follow-up? Any other questions?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator McConnell.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. I guess the missing link that I don't understand, why were the children removed?
A. Ex parte order signed on April 2nd alleging physical abuse and on ex parte order on -- they took one of the children on April 2nd. The court case in Chester County. I was present there with the other three children. I was not allowed in to testify. My name was put all over that transcript.

When we went to appeal it, we found two different court orders for the same day and we found now that the transcript has been destroyed, so they reprimanded the court reporter. Then they came -- as I said on May 7th,

Printed Page 1647 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Leroy Montgomery came to our house, wanted to know what information I had that the Sheriff's Department was involved with taking the kids from school and allegedly putting them on this train and he talked to Chris who was nine years old at the time. I disagreed with what he told Chris. He told Chris to drop this whole deal. I talked to Leroy Montgomery about it. He left upset.

They came that night at 10:30 at night with an ex parte order saying that parents' emotional instability cannot guarantee safety of children in the house. There was no hospital reports. There's no medical reports and there's no doctor reports.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask a question about this, was there a permanent custody order that was entered in the case following the temporary?
A. No, sir, the case is still ongoing.
THE CHAIRMAN: Has it been appealed or is it still under review by the Family Court?
A. It's under review. It was appealed. The appeal was turned down, which I learned was our fault due to the shoddy attorney work on the appeal because the one attorney that represented us the day the hearing was set on July 10th, 1991, resigned 20 minutes before court.

Judge Barrineau refused to grant a continuance that day. He cut off our visitation despite reports from DSS that three days before that, quote, unquote, a fruitful visit between Tom and Amy and the children. We appealed that on July 10th. They turned out down the appeal, but they advised us to proceed under I believe it's Rule 60(b) which is irregularities or new information or whatever, but these are the children the day they were taken, we went to State DSS. That's May 7th.

I asked Mr. Holcomb what grounds he had for taking the children on signing the ex parte order. He said,
"Well, you all were acting crazy." I said, "Well, what does acting crazy constitute?" "Well," he said, "you were going everywhere." We went to SLED that day. I talked to a Jeremiah Davis. He saw nothing wrong with the children. I went to the State Department of Education that day. We went to the Sheriff's Department. They declined to give us a report and they -- Leroy Montgomery came that night and took the children.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I believe Representative Beatty has a question.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY:
Q. Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to get to the bottom of the allegation. Your allegation is exactly what that the judge has done that makes him unfit?

Printed Page 1648 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. Okay, first of all, my allegation is that he never should have heard the case. You asked him earlier point blank has he --
Q. Is it because of the conflict of interest you make reference to?
A. With the Sheriff's Department, exactly. With him owning land with Leroy Montgomery. He had a business relationship with him. He should not have gotten legally involved in any case --
Q. Did Leroy Montgomery appear at this hearing?
A. He was there, but he did not testify. We wanted him to testify.
Q. So there is a conflict of interest allegation. What is the next allegation?
A. The next allegation is the failure by either his lack of knowledge of the law, which I find interesting because he said the biggest change he's noticed in the past has been the changes during his tenure were more detailed evidence presented, case law has become more detailed and intricate. There has been numerous --
Q. So you're saying he didn't know what the law -- the applicable law was to your case?
A. For example, letting foster children go out of state. What is the law on that? Because they've been taken out of state without petitioning the court numerous times.
Q. So didn't know the law as to allowing foster children to leave the state and a conflict of interest in hearing the case?
A. And also I don't believe -- I don't want to sling dirt, but I believe he failed to hear both sides of the story. If you review the transcripts, my wife and I have had no more than 30 words spoken total. Any time we tried to speak -- there is one transcript where my wife said,
"But, your Honor, I want to speak. These are my children." He said, "Sit your ass down. Speak through your attorney." That's the transcript of October 21st, 1991.
Q. Temperament, not knowing the applicable law --
A. Is that knowing the law?
Q. -- and conflict of interest. Those are the three allegations we're making here?
A. And failure to adequately supervise DSS to go by their federally mandated job which is to reunify the family.
Q. Now that I understand what the allegations are --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- let's get back to the original removal of the children. What happened to initiate this?
Printed Page 1649 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. On April -- this is still involved in the court ongoing case in Richland County. This is why my attorney has told me to move slowly on this.
Q. Well, what I'm trying to get at is how did the case get before Judge Barrineau?
A. The case April 2nd -- and I will say this in fairness to Judge Barrineau, the one where I was not allowed into the courtroom and where there are two court orders for the same hearing and where the transcript is missing was heard by a Judge Mobley. So I should have been clear on that. I apologize for that. That was heard on Judge Mobley. The first time it went before Judge Barrineau was May 15th, 1991 on the --
Q. So Judge Barrineau was not the original judge who removed -- authorized the removal of the children?
A. Judge Barrineau author--- the children were taken in sets. One was removed on April 2nd. We had further problems during April. My wife was arrested on a charge of harassment, which there is no charge. Bubba Montgomery came out to the house four --
Q. No, no, no. My question --
A. -- or five times --
Q. Excuse me. My question is --
A. Okay.
Q. -- the first judge involved in this case was who?
A. Judge Mobley only because he was hearing the cases that day.
Q. So the children had been taken into protective custody?
A. No, one of the children.
Q. One had been taken into protective custody. Judge Mobley heard that one?
A. Right. Right.
Q. And then the other, the second set were taken --
A. By an ex parte order almost a month and -- almost 35 days later signed by Judge Barrineau.
Q. All right. Protective custody. They were taken into protective custody, but then when you had your hearing, who heard that?
A. Judge Barrineau. And he's heard every one since the case was transferred --
Q. So it's your allegation --
A. Until transferred --
Q. -- then that hearing with Judge Barrineau that he did not hear your side of the story, his temperament was bad, didn't know the law and the third one was --
A. That --

| Printed Page 1630, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1650, Feb. 10 |
Page Finder Index