Sumter, SC — The South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) is facing mounting scrutiny as it makes its second attempt to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of David Steele and Kim Esco of Sumter County, despite one previous denial by a family court judge. At the center of the escalating legal and ethical controversy is growing public concern that DSS’s actions may not only violate due process but constitute a form of state-enabled child trafficking.
The Escos originally sought help from DSS for housing assistance and EBT benefits during a time of financial difficulty. After receiving little to no support and moving in with Kim’s mother, the family was blindsided when DSS arrived to remove their two young daughters, without, according to the Escos, any investigation, hearing, or evidence of imminent danger.
Alarmingly, within just a few months of the removal, DSS had already initiated the adoption process for one of the daughters. This rapid move toward adoption, before a final court ruling and with no substantiated abuse or neglect findings, raises red flags for what advocates say may be part of a pattern of unlawful removals under the guise of child protection.
Guardian Ad Litem Report that shows use of terminology to indicate Adoption was possibly preplanned with explanation:
In the image above, taken from the Guardian Ad Litem report, you see how DSS has resorted to reaching for criminal behavior against the parents, using items as minor as an uninsured motor vehicle charge from 10 years back. And you see the first action taken by DSS was an Ex-Parte hearing to obtain a removal order, then a probable cause hearing.
In dealing with Domestic Relations Courts and DSS, terminology is key, as the above sample again is shown in the GAL report. As the Guardian in this case has already begun referring to the children as being with their new family! You will also notice that the son in this case was separated from his sisters. This is often done as young girls are easier to groom for adoption than male children. Later, one of the girls was removed and placed in a different home due to her alleged outburst, which is easily explained as separation anxiety from her parents.
In the above image are the reasons that Sumter DSS wishes to terminate the parental rights. The first being the length the children have been in foster care. This reason is actually due to DSS’s continued placements of hurdles the parents had to continue jumping through, not due to the parents’ actions. There is no proven abuse or neglect ever stated in the report, merely allegations of such.
In portion 2, you read: “in order to fulfill its duties under the order and federal law, including, but not limited to, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008.
Alleged Violation of Court Orders and Due Process
Despite a court order granting the Escos visitation rights, DSS has repeatedly failed to bring the daughter, currently on an adoption track, to scheduled visits, simply stating that the child “doesn’t want to attend.” Legal experts stress that a child’s reluctance—especially a minor under state custody—does not give DSS the authority to override a judge’s order.
By refusing to comply with court-ordered visitation, DSS may be acting in contempt of court, while simultaneously obstructing efforts at reunification and violating the Escos’ parental rights. Such actions have only intensified suspicions that DSS is more focused on fast-tracking children into adoption than following lawful family preservation procedures.
Disturbing Use of Force Caught on Video
One particularly troubling incident was captured on video and released by the Escos. In the footage, Sumter County deputies and DSS workers arrive at the family home. A deputy is seen with his firearm drawn, while Mr. Esco—visibly emotional but unarmed and nonviolent—is tackled by six officers and restrained.
During the encounter, a deputy falsely claims that Mr. Esco had a knife—an allegation never supported by any evidence. Simultaneously, a DSS representative is recorded questioning Mr. Esco for the first time about allegations, suggesting that no formal investigation was conducted before the removal attempt. This supports accusations that the agency engaged in what can be described as a “snatch and grab” tactic, devoid of legal foundation.
The following fabrication is contained in the GAL report pertaining to this video:
“The case manager attempted initial contact with the parents at their home with the assistance of law enforcement. Sergeant Jordan and Deputy Boyd of the Sumter County Sheriff’s Department responded. Ms. Esco was not at home, but contact was made with Mr. Steele, who was at work, via telephone.
Mr. Steele came to the home at that time. When he arrived, he was driving fast. He stopped the vehicle, jumped out of the car with a knife, and stated nobody was taking his “fucking kids.” Mr. Steele continued to say no one was taking his kids and began to walk towards offices and the case manager. Officers asked Mr. Steele to stop and drop the knife. Mr. Steele continued to state no one was taking his children, using profanity, and began to walk towards the inside of the home stating he had more firepower coming. Officers drew their weapons and went behind the parked RV when Mr. Steele came out of the home. The case manager and two coworkers who were there to assist left the residence at that time in the agency vehicle and parked across the street.
Other police officers were called to the home. Mr. Steele could be heard using profanity toward the officers as they attempted to deescalate the situation. Mr. Steele was placed under arrest. Once in handcuffs, law enforcement came to get the case managers to conduct an interview. During the interview, the case manager read the allegations to Mr. Steele. He stated that allegations were not true and denied hitting Dylan.”
“Cash for Kids” or State-Sanctioned Child Trafficking?
This case is now fueling broader public outcry over what many in South Carolina refer to as “Cash for Kids”—a controversial term describing a system in which DSS is financially incentivized to remove children from their families and place them into adoptive homes, rather than working toward reunification. Under federal law, adoption bonuses and funding streams can be tied to successful placements, creating what critics call a perverse financial motive to remove children even when it isn’t justified.
But in cases like the Esco family, where children are taken without cause, fast-tracked into adoption, and intentionally withheld from their biological parents despite court orders, advocates and legal observers warn that the behavior goes beyond negligence or bureaucratic failure, and may meet the legal and moral definition of child trafficking.
Unlike trafficking involving private criminal networks, this form is state-enabled, where the power of the government is used to forcibly separate families and transfer custody of children without full due process. Families are often left powerless, especially when they lack the financial means to fight back in court.
A Call for Oversight and Justice
The Escos have been transparent throughout their ordeal, providing documents, court filings, and video evidence they say proves misconduct and systemic abuse by DSS. With their third TPR hearing approaching, their children remain separated from them, despite a judge twice ruling in their favor.
Community advocates and legal experts are now demanding an independent investigation into Sumter County DSS, as well as a statewide audit of DSS and Family Court practices, particularly in rural counties where oversight is often weakest.
At the core of this disturbing case are two young children whose futures hang in the balance. As the Escos continue to fight for their family, the larger question persists: Is South Carolina protecting children, or profiting from their removal?
Unless changes are made, critics warn, more families may fall victim to a system that appears to be enabling—not preventing—child trafficking under state authority.
If you wish to support the Esco Family at their hearing, it is scheduled for July 23rd, 2025, at the Sumter County Courthouse. Both Parents and supporters will be there to answer questions about this ongoing case.