| Printed Page 5200, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5220, Apr. 28 |

And as a Family Court judge that's such a good opportunity to try to make a difference in a juvenile's life because you might be the reason he goes one way or the other. I would like to have the reputation quite frankly as being very, very tough on juveniles, like a one shot, you're out for juveniles. And I agree with Steve Dennis that you need to look behind the juvenile to see what the problem is, go to the home and find out what's going on there. It might be that there needs to be a home study in the home to see. The child might be being abused. The child might not have enough to eat. There might be a variety of things that are happening to cause them to do this. And then you can go through the channels to correct those problems.

The child might have psychological problems and need counseling, but I think as a whole, you have to be very, very strict on the juveniles that you need to be strict with, but I have a real problem with the victimless -- the juveniles that have committed victimless crimes being treated just like the others.
MS. MCNAMEE: Senator McConnell, I don't have anything more.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Thank you. Any Members of the Committee have any questions? Thank you, ma'am, we appreciate you coming today. Our next candidate is Francenia Heizer. Ms. Heizer, how are you doing?
MS. HEIZER: I'm doing fine, Senator. It's good to see ya'll this afternoon.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Sorry about the uncomfortable atmospheric conditions we have in this building. It's bad, I'll tell you. If you'd raise your right hand for us.
FRANCENIA B. HEIZER, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
SENATOR MCCONNELL: And you're in the race for judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat Number 4, correct?
MS. HEIZER: That's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: This is your first screening?
MS. HEIZER: That's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: And have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MS. HEIZER: Yes, sir.

1. Francenia B. (Frannie) Heizer
Home Address: Business Address:
3427 Blossom Street P. O. Box 11390
Columbia, SC 29205 Columbia, SC 29211

2. She was born in Columbia, South Carolina on September 14, 1954. She is presently 39 years old.

4. She is single.

5. Military Service: N/A

6. She attended classes part time at the University of South Carolina for college credit while a senior in high school, 1971-1972; the University of South Carolina as a Carolina Scholar, graduated Summa Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Art's degree in History, 1972-1976; the University of Warwick, Coventry, England (Exchange Program; no degree earned), fall of 1974; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, graduated with a Juris Doctor degree, 1976-1979.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; Child Victim in Court; Charleston, SC; 2/27/89
South Carolina Association of Counties; S. C. Municipal and County Attorneys Institute; Columbia, SC, 12/15/89

9. Taught or Lectured:
She made representations at the following CLE courses:
Co-Presenter in day-long seminar entitled "Representing the Child's Interest in Abuse & Neglect Proceedings," sponsored by the University of South Carolina College of Social Work on April 24, 1990;
"South Carolina Municipal and County Attorneys Institute," sponsored by The South Carolina Association of Counties on December 15, 1989; and "Family Law in South Carolina," sponsored by the Legal Education Institute, Inc. on June 24, 1988
She has taught Certified Apartment Managers Training Courses I and II for the Apartment Association of Greater Columbia at least once during each of the last five years.
She has also made presentations on the South Carolina Residential Landlord/Tenant Act on behalf of the Apartment Association of Greater Columbia.

10. Published Books and Articles:
None other than materials associated with continuing legal education

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1989-Present McNair & Sanford, P.A., formerly McNair Law Firm, P.A., Of Counsel. Practice now includes combination of local government work including municipal finance, domestic and family law. Primary emphasis has been on government law and municipal finance.
1986-1989 Part-time attorney for Richland County Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Project.
1987-1989 Partner in law firm, Cooper, Coffas, Heizer, Studemeyer & Megna, P.A. Practice included primarily domestic and family law with a significant portion of the practice devoted to work as guardian ad litem for children in contested custody matters and as attorney for the Richland County Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Project. Some general practice including landlord/tenant work, representing the Apartment Association of Greater Columbia and certain of its members.
1979-1986 Partner in law firm, Coble & Heizer.
General law practice including domestic, personal injury, real estate, landlord/tenant, and collection work; practice also included work for governmental entities including Catawba Indian Study Commission and Richland County.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:BV

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - None

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 5%
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 30%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - None
Non-Jury - 100% - Family Court
Sole Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) State v. Sullivan, 282 S.E.2d 838 (S.C. 1981). She prepared a consolidated Brief for the Appellants in this criminal appeal. This case involved complex questions regarding rules of evidence, burdens of proof of conspiracy, and other issues related to a long criminal trial with several defendants. Her research indicates that this case is frequently cited for its definitions of conspiracy and other statements of law contained in the published opinion.
(b) Whetstone v. Whetstone, 346 S.E.2d 532 (S.C. 1986). She was the primary attorney in the underlying adoption from which this case arose. This case is significant because it illustrates the limitations on a grandparent's right to intervene in an adoption when both parents have agreed to the adoption. It also illustrates the importance of procedural matters and time frames in adoption actions.
(c) Holcombe v. Kennison, 388 S.E.2d 807 (S.C. 1990). She represented the volunteer guardian ad litem for the minor child who was the subject of this action. This case received substantial publicity and involved allegations of kidnapping, brainwashing, creation of false identities, fleeing the jurisdiction of the court, and other techniques and devices designed to prevent our state courts from making a decision regarding custody of the minor child. This involved important legal issues regarding the emancipation of minors, common law marriages, parental rights, and rights of non

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Sears v. Sears; Court of Appeals for South Carolina; September 19, 1985.
(b) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Edgar and Eunice Gerald; Supreme Court of South Carolina; July 20, 1987; 358 S.E.2d 712 (S.C. 1987).
(c) Spartanburg County Department of Social Services v. Powell; Court of Appeals of South Carolina; December 4, 1989.
(d) Beti Owens Holcombe v. David Foster Kennison, et al.; Supreme Court of South Carolina; February 5, 1990; 388 S.E.2d 807 (S.C. 1990).

22. Public Office:
Columbia City Council Member; 1986-1994; elected
Mayor Pro Tempore for the City of Columbia; 1992-1993; elected by City Council

23. Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
Hearing officer for The Department of Health and Environmental Control from 1985-1989. Heard and decided contested appeals and

26. Officer or Director: She is one-third partner in the ownership of rental property located at 3405, 3407 and 3409 Heyward Street. Together the partners make all business decision. Partnership has been in existence since 1983. Said property is located in Columbia, South Carolina.

28. Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
She does not foresee such conflicts; however, if any existed, she would recuse herself from any matters involving her law firm, partners in property ownership, or the individuals with whom she is currently associated with in the practice of law.

32. Sued:
She has been sued on numerous occasions in her capacity as a member of the Columbia City Council. She was also named in a lawsuit which has been filed against a former law firm of which she was a partner; however, she has no personal involvement in said suit.

35. Lobbyist or Lobbyist Principal:
1981 - Apartment Association of Columbia
1984 - Spa Lady of South Carolina, Inc.

39. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
2/24/94; Mid-Town Kwik Kopy, Inc.; Stationery; $186.59
2/24/94; McNair & Stanford, P. A., P. O. Box 11390, Columbia, SC 29211; reimbursement of postage; $49.30
2/24/94; Francenia B. Heizer; reimbursement for office supplies; $10.23

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association - Family Law and Urban, State and Local Government Law Section; South Carolina Bar Association - Family Law and Government Law Section; Richland County Bar Association; National Association of Bond Lawyers; South Carolina Women Lawyers Association; Women in Municipal Government

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints have ever been filed against you. Records of the applicable law enforcement agencies: Richland County Sheriff's Office, a negative; the Columbia City Police Department is a negative; SLED and FBI records are negative.

The Judgement Rolls of Richland County are negative. Federal Court records showed no judgements or criminal actions against you. There were three civil actions in which you were named as a defendant in your capacity as a member of the Columbia City Council. You may not even have known you got sued.
MS. HEIZER: I know about some of those. I was in one for two weeks this summer. Yes, sir, that's my understanding that that would be correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: And no complaints or statements have been received and no witnesses are present to testify. With that, I'm going to turn you over to Mr. Elliott who I think has got a few questions for you.
MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think of the time I now spend in Family Court, a fair amount of it still continues to be pro bono matters or matters related to abuse and neglect cases which can be contested at different levels, so that you can have an agreement very quickly in a case. Sometimes it takes a little longer for an agreement to be reached and sometimes you have to try the case.

I have just spent parts of two days within the last, I guess, six weeks in Family Court completing the trial of a contested matter that related to a DSS case. And prior to 1989, my practice was primarily a Family Court practice. I was in Family Court almost every day dealing with both contested and uncontested matters. A good bit of the experience I had prior to 1989 related to cases in which DSS was a party in terms of child abuse and neglect case or cases in which I was a guardian ad litem for a child in a contested custody matter.

But prior to '89, I handled a full range of Family Court cases, everything from contested divorces, contested custody matters, cases about college expenses, cases under the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act, the whole range of cases. And so I think I've touched base on just about every aspect of Family Court work that one can do in this state.

| Printed Page 5200, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5220, Apr. 28 |