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 5220, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5240, Apr. 28 |
Printed Page 5230 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
Assistant Solicitor, 1984-1985: Prosecution of adult criminal defendants in Richland and Kershaw Counties in General Sessions and Magistrate's Courts for various criminal offenses. Responsibilities included the preparation and trial of cases, interviewing witnesses, drafting and arguing legal motions, formulating plea agreements, preparation of indictments and advising local law enforcement agencies regarding legal issues, charging decisions, and collection of evidence.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:She is listed but has not been rated individually by Martindale-Hubbell. Her law firm is rated AV.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - very infrequently
State - daily
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 5%
Criminal - 5%
Domestic - 90%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - less than 5%
Non-Jury - more than 95%
Sole Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Shuler v. Shuler. This was a contested divorce case in which she represented one of the parties. The most significant issues in this case were purely economic. This couple had amassed in excess of $75,000 in personal debt on 45 different credit cards and loan accounts. In addition, the marital residence was titled in the husband's father's name, though both husband and wife had contributed to the equity in it. The contested issues involved the setting of alimony, the distribution of the marital debt, the distribution of equity in the home, and the inter-relation between these economic factors on each other.

Printed Page 5231 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
(b) Coker v. Coker. This was a contested child custody case involving two children, ages eight and five. She was the children's Guardian ad Litem, representing the children's best interests. One parent had engaged in several adulterous affairs without the children knowing. The other parent upon learning of the affairs, told the children of the illicit relationships. The most significant issue involved which of these actions were most detrimental to the children and the impact of these actions on each parent's fitness in the custody determination.
(c) In Re Dawkins. This was a Department of Social Services case involving allegations of physical and sexual abuse on a hearing impaired teenage girl. The alleged perpetrator was the child's mother. She represented the Guardian ad Litem and ultimately the child's best interests. The teenage girl was so attached to her mother as a result of her handicap that she wanted to live with her mother despite the abuse. This resulted in considerable reluctance on the child's part to assist the State in proving the abuse. The entire case had to be tried through the use of an interpreter.
(d) Berger v. Miller. Child custody is reviewable at any time based on the child's best interests. In this case, she represented the mother of a child attempting to show a material and substantial change in circumstances which would warrant a change in the previously ordered custody provisions. The factors involved including the child's poor performance in school, the father exposing the child to his adulterous affairs, verbal abuse by the father and allegedly questionable religious affiliations of the mother.
(e) State v. Napoleon Goodson IV. This case involved the murder of a young man by a 16-year-old juvenile. She was the assistant solicitor assigned to the case. A motion was heard by the Family Court requesting that the case be waived to the court of General Sessions and the juvenile be tried as an adult. This motion was denied. Pursuant to the applicable law, an appeal was brought in the Circuit Court. The juvenile filed a writ of supersedes in the Supreme Court asserting that the state's appeal should be dismissed. The writ was denied. The appeal was then heard in the Circuit Court and the court asserted jurisdiction. The juvenile was tried as an adult and ultimately convicted of voluntary
Printed Page 5232 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
manslaughter. This is significant because violent crime among juveniles is increasing at an alarming rate and the transferring of jurisdiction to the court of General Sessions will occur more often in the future.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
While she has never handled an appeal from a divorce, custody or child support case, she has handled an appeal from a juvenile criminal case in Family Court. State v. Napoleon Goodson IV, Court of General Sessions, Date of Decision: March 4, 1986

28. Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
Kirkland, Dodson, Rush & Riddle
She would recuse herself in any case involving former clients. In addition, she would recuse herself from hearing any cases involving members of her law firm until judicial ethics would permit.

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
St. Luke's Lutheran Church

47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Mary Varnadore, Regional Manager
S. C. Telco Federal Credit Union
P. O. Box 3287, Cayce-West Columbia, SC 29171
256-3132
(b) Samuel F. Crews, III, Esquire
Richardson, Plowden, Grier & Howser, P.A.
P. O. Drawer 7788, Columbia, SC 29202
771-4400
(c) Honorable Barbara A. Scott
Clerk of Court, Richland County
P. O. Box 1781, Columbia, SC 29202
748-4684
(d) Cyril B. Rush, Jr., Esquire
Kirkland, Dodson, Rush & Riddle
P. O. Box 8012, Columbia, SC 29202
252-0370

Printed Page 5233 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
(e) George E. Lewis, Esquire
Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A.
P. O. Box 1473, Columbia, SC 29202
254-2200

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. The Record of the applicable law enforcement agencies, the Richland County Sheriff's Office, Columbia and Irmo City Police, SLED and FBI are all negative. The Judgment Rolls of Richland County are negative. The Federal Court records are negative. We have no complaints or statements which we've received. No witnesses are present to testify against you.

Prior to turning your testimony over to Mr. Elliott for questioning, you do have the opportunity to make an oral statement or if you want, a written statement for us to put in the record.
MS. RIDDLE: Waive.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Elliott.
MS. RIDDLE - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Let's do the same thing if we could as we did with Ms. Heizer and sort of establish your experience with Family Court.
A. Okay.
Q. And those kind of matters.
A. Initially whenever I graduated from law school ten years ago, I started working in the Solicitor's office, for the Solicitor's Office. At that time, I did approximately a year and a half as a juvenile prosecutor. My job at that point was to prosecute all children accused of criminal acts in Richland County. At that time I also did some of the abuse and neglect prosecution.

And then I believe in 1986, I went to practice law in private practice at Kirkland -- it was Kirkland, Aaron and Alley at that time. During my time of practicing law there, I did domestic work, custody fights, abuse and neglect defense of the parent. I represented juveniles in criminal cases in Family Court. I did termination of -- terminations of parental rights, adoptions, child support, defending paternity actions. Every aspect of Family Court that you basically could do.

Then my -- that practice dissolved and I began practicing law as a partner in the law firm of Kirkland, Dodson, Rush and Riddle. During my time of practicing law there, I have done some contract work for the Department of Social Services as their attorney for abuse and neglect. I did that this past summer which included -- at that point, it was at the time

Printed Page 5234 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
whenever DSS was leaving the Solicitor's Office as a responsible prosecutor until it turned over to DSS.

During that time, I prosecuted abuse and neglects. And I believe in 19 -- the latter part of 1988 to the early part of 1990, I represented the guardian ad litem project for abuse and neglected children representing children in abuse and neglect.

During the time that -- in addition, while I've been practicing with Kirkland, Dodson, Rush and Riddle, I represented litigants in divorce matters, custody fights, all of the things that you can do in Family Court and, in addition, I have represented on numerous occasions children in custody fights. So I have -- my practice of law has been in Family Court almost exclusively since I've been out of law school.
Q. Almost exclusively. Could you put a percentage on that, please?
A. 95.
Q. I think it's, what, a ten-year record?
A. 95.
Q. That you've been out --
A. I have done some criminal representation in General Sessions. It's not been my favorite area, but I have done some of it. Luckily, my twin brother does all that now.
Q. What about marital property, what experience have you had?
A. I have litigated the division of marital property. I've litigated the aspect of how debts are related to the division of marital property. I have litigated the division of marital property when the title holders of that property were not the individuals in the lawsuits. In other words, you may be named third parties as individuals or parties in the action.

I mean I have litigated debt obligations that would just blow you away, $165,000 worth of credit cards. I mean you spend a day going through credit cards debt.
Q. You'd be surprised. That doesn't blow me away.
A. I think that's a lot of the reason for breakups of marriages, but that's that.
Q. You've prosecuted juveniles and we've asked this of other candidates, having done so, you may be in a -- have a special point of view --
A. I think --
Q. -- about that? What can be done about the rising tide of juvenile crime?
A. Well, I have -- initially whenever I began being a juvenile prosecutor, I noticed the increase in the guns and then taking it to school and taking weapons and stuff like that. I was involved in some shooting -- well, I

Printed Page 5235 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
wasn't literally involved in the shooting, but I was involved in the prosecution of the juveniles that did do the shooting at schools.

You know, when you evaluate it and you look at what happens, what you see a lot of times is that the children's support and the positive peer pressure and everything isn't there when they go home. I used to say whenever I was prosecuting that you had like four or five different categories where you saw children coming into Family Court. You know, they didn't know their father, they'd never met their father or their mother, they didn't have a real good relationship with her, she was a single parent, she was working all the time, she was not taking appropriate care of them. You see them a lot of times. You see some adoptive children in that situation.

There's all kinds of things out there and that's one of the biggest reasons I want to be a Family Court judge is because there are things you can do to help kids that if you've got experience and you've seen what's there, you can really apply it and have an effect on what happens to this kid.

I'm talking about like there is the Beaufort Marine Program which I know ya'll have probably heard a lot about. There's all kind of ideas like Judge Byars wants to put in the possibility of a -- not a boot camp, but a school that they could get positive peer pressure as opposed to negative peer pressure which is all they see in the schools.

I mean all of those things can be applied if you know they are there and you want to do it. And that is all I've ever done and I mean I think I can do it. Somebody needs to jump in the fire and take responsibility instead of sitting back and just hoping things get better.
Q. Do you see the Family Court as the first line of defense?
A. Well, I think home is the first line. I mean, you know, I think the family and the extended family. I think a lot of people have gotten away with the importance of what extended family is. I think that's your first line of defense.

I think the school system is there to support the family, but it's not the ultimate responsibility. The ultimate responsibility falls in the home. And whenever the homes fail and when the school can't, you know, help, that's when the schools come in and the kids have to feel like when they come into that courtroom that somebody means business.

You know, they're not going to stand back and just say, "Well, I'm sorry, Johnny, you know, I'm going to let you go home this time and you don't have to worry about it." Somebody has got to be there and they've got to sit there and go look, "I mean business." I mean and that's what

Printed Page 5236 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
I -- you know, I think that's what a judge has to do. He has to listen to it and decide.
Q. Just to flesh out your experience a little bit more. What percentage of the CLE's have you attended have been in the area of family law and have you done any writing --
A. I have not done --
Q. -- in terms of legal scholarship, in that area?
A. I have not done any writing. As far as CLE's are concerned, probably 75 percent of my CLE's have been directly toward Family Court. That is the area that I practice in. I have -- I recently went to a PCR seminar because I got appointed on a PCR and I wanted to know what I was doing when I represented that person on the PCR. I have been to some estate PCR -- I mean, some estate CLE's and some Ethics CLE's that you have to go to. I've been to those.
Q. What kind of work schedule do you maintain now?
A. I'm sort of a workaholic. I get it honestly. I get up at 6:00 o'clock in the morning. I get my children ready. I get them off to school. I have a very wonderful husband who is very supportive and is always there for me and now I'm putting it on the record, it's probably going to come back to haunt me later on in -- if I ever got a divorce, but --
Q. You do do too much Family Court work.
A. I know. You know that. But anyway I get them off to school, well, day care, I guess is what you would call it, but it's my aunt. I get to work early in the mornings. I work hard every day. In fact, sometimes I don't eat lunch, sometimes I do.

My clients are very important to me. I spend all of my day either seeing clients or preparing orders, talking on the telephone. I usually work until six -- well, a quarter to 6:00 and then I go pick up my children and do what mama's should do.
Q. Are you there on Friday afternoons?
A. I don't know any other way, but to work on Friday afternoons, but I work sometimes Saturdays and sometimes Sundays.
Q. What would your workday be like on the bench? When would it start and when would it end?
A. Well, if my track record is an indication of what it would be, I would get there when I'm supposed to be first thing in the morning. I mean, I would get there anywhere from 8:30 to 9:00 o'clock in the morning which is when most judges get there. I mean, well, for the most part, and then I would hear my cases and I would work until I was through.

I mean I think one of the really, really important things and one of the things that the litigants need is somebody that will be there that won't say,

Printed Page 5237 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
"Oh, it's time for lunch. Let's break." It's important that they feel like their cases are being moved, that someone is listening to them, that they get it done and they get it over with. And I think sometimes that that's more important than -- I mean, there's a lot of other aspects that are important, but just whenever it's scheduled, you're there.
Q. Who is going to be your role model for judicial temperament and what about their temperament is it that you like and think is worthy of being modeled?
A. There is probably two or three judges who I -- that whenever they walk in that courtroom, you know that they are going to listen to everything that every litigant says and they will pay attention to them and they will be responsible for their decisions. Judge Burnside is one of them. Judge Byars is another one. I heard Frannie mention Judge Byars. I mean he is just caring, responsible. He's there.

And I recently tried a four day custody case with Judge Rucker and he treated the litigants, the attorneys and all the witnesses with respect and understanding and concern and I think that's real important that the judges understand that that's -- that goes without saying.
Q. In the areas of gifts and social hospitality, what's going to be your rule?
A. Well, I, too, looked over the Judicial Canons whenever I was -- before I came here and wanted to make sure that I understood them in case I was asked a question like that. You don't take any gifts. I know, for example, Judge Campbell got a turkey one time and he just gave it back. I think it went bad downstairs in the Family Court. But you just -- you don't take them. It's just a rule that you just don't accept gifts at all.
Q. Is your standard the same as some of the other candidates, anything of value constitutes a gift?
A. I wouldn't take it because I wouldn't want anybody to think that I wasn't being fair.
Q. What practices have you employed as an attorney in the area of ex parte communication and what do you expect out of the Bar, if you become a judge?
A. Well, my understanding of ex parte communications is you don't do it, period. If you are going to talk to a judge about a case, the other side should be there. That would be what I would do.
Q. All right.
A. I mean, I would not talk to them about the subject without the other lawyer being there.

Printed Page 5238 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
Q. All right. What would be your practice about writing orders and making decisions?
A. Well, you know, it would be nice if we had the perfect situation where judges could write their own orders and they had time to do it, but anybody that practices law in Family Court understands the limitations of being able to draw your own order. I mean Family Court judges, sometimes they hear hundreds in one day, especially if you've got child support hearings, and now those are formal orders that are usually written out.

The way that I have seen it done and the way that I have done it with judges is that the judge generally makes the order from the bench, writes down what his order or her order is in the court file, so that when she does receive that order, she knows what the order is.

The order is prepared by either the plaintiff or the defendant's attorney depending on who is told to do it. It's presented to the other side and then it's sent on.

Now, if there was a controversy about what the order said or shouldn't say, I mean the response you have is you listen to the tape of the hearing. I mean that's the way you'd have to settle that dispute.
Q. What level of comfort are you going to have to have to sign an order written by somebody else?
A. I'm going to read it. I mean I think the most important thing is you've just got to sit down and you've got to read and make sure it says exactly what you ordered.
Q. Well, to what extent do you read it? I mean do you read it and then check the cites? What do you do?
A. If there are cases cited in there and I am not familiar with those cases, then I would refer to those cites and make sure that what that lawyer said that cite or what that order is saying, I'd make sure it said it. The other thing is I would refer back to my notes from the hearing and make sure that what was in the order is what I ordered and read it thoroughly. I mean in my cases most of it, I've never -- well, first of all, I would never send an order to a judge that wasn't what the judge ordered, but I have seen that most judges read their orders before they sign them.
Q. From your Personal Data Questionnaire, it looks like you come from a family full of lawyers. Is that correct?
A. We clone them.
Q. You clone them. Do you understand what your ethical responsibilities are if you're elected a judge and should one of them come before you perhaps or have a case involving them before you?

Printed Page 5239 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
A. I don't hear cases that my father, my brother or my husband are involved in or any of their law partners. I understand that and I wouldn't.
Q. Would you always recuse yourself in the case of not family members, but law partners?
A. Well, you know, this is something I may not be able to directly respond to because I believe that there is a certain amount of time that can elapse after being a law partner with somebody. You know, ten years down the line from now, I very well may not have any problem at all with an ex-law partner.

Until the Judiciary tells me that it's okay, I'm not going to hear any of them. I assume that probably that my current law partners will probably always practice law with my brother, so, you know, I wouldn't.
Q. Is your husband an attorney? I think I read that he was.
A. Yes, he's a prosecutor.
Q. And he practices in Lexington County, or is a prosecutor in Lexington County?
A. He's a prosecutor, yes.
Q. If you're a Family Court judge, there is going to be an occasional case where you sure would like to have the advice of somebody real close to you, that you can trust and value their opinion?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. I assume that might be your husband?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. How would you handle that?
A. I believe if I'm not correct about this, that the Canons say that there is nothing that forbids a judge from asking someone that's got some -- a particular expertise, but that you have to get permission from the litigants before you do that. I doubt I would ask my husband for legal advice.
Q. I won't pursue that. Have you sought the pledge of a legislator either directly or indirectly?
A. No.
Q. Have you asked anyone else or otherwise authorized anyone to seek a pledge for you?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Do you know of any solicitations for pledges that have been made on your behalf?
A. Pledges. No.
Q. What have you done on behalf of your candidacy so far?
A. Well, I've introduced myself and sent them a resume and let them know about my experience and, you know, I've gone around and just

Printed Page 5240 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
basically told them about my experience, if they wanted to know about it and if they didn't, I'd say, "Well, it's nice meeting you and move on."
Q. Have you been sanctioned or held in contempt by a court?
A. No.
Q. That's all the questions I have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you aware of any solicitations that have been made on your behalf?
A. I know that -- I was told that some people had called and I didn't ask them to do it and I told them not to do it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other than that? Is that the extent of it?
A. No, that's it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
A. Because I know that you're not supposed to do anything until after the screening results are back.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the Members? Thank you Ms. Riddle.
A. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. The next candidate is Donna S. Strom. Ms. Strom. If you'd raise your right hand, please.
DONNA S. STROM, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire?
MS. STROM: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And is everything correct?
MS. STROM: Yes, it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to our making that a formal part of the record?
MS. STROM: Absolutely not.
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be done at this time.

| Printed Page 5220, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5240, Apr. 28 |
Page Finder Index