|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
South Carolina’s supreme court seemed troubled this week by the blanket sealing of a family court case involving former Southern Charm stars Thomas Ravenel and Kathryn Dennis — particularly as Dennis continued making public statements about litigation she insisted she was prohibited from discussing.
During oral arguments at Clemson University on Tuesday (September 15, 2026), the justices repeatedly questioned whether the children’s privacy required the entire court file to remain sealed — or whether sensitive information could be protected through targeted redactions.
They also pressed Dennis’ attorney to explain the apparent contradiction between her frequent public comments and her ongoing insistence that opening the records would harm the former couple’s two children.
“Why doesn’t she just kind of… be quiet?” justice George C. James Jr. asked at one point.
James later offered a more detailed assessment of the dilemma confronting the court.
***
***
“It seems to me that Ms. Dennis wants this backdrop — an overarching premise that the best interests of the children are paramount,” he said. “But under that umbrella, she wants to say everything she wants to say … and then when somebody says, ‘okay, well, let’s unseal it’ – nope.”
“Her own actions are begging this controversy,” James added. “And then she says, ‘hands off – best interest of the child.’”
Dennis’ attorney, state senator Tom Davis, acknowledged he would not have advised his client to make some of the statements cited by Ravenel. He maintained, however, that her conduct did not relieve the court of its obligation to protect the children.
“You can’t punish the children because of the actions of a parent,” Davis told the justices.
The court did not immediately rule on the matter.
***
THE FIGHT OVER THE FILE
As FITSNews previously reported, the appeal does not ask the justices to reconsider custody of Ravenel and Dennis’ two minor children.
The narrow question is whether Charleston County family court judge Daniel E. Martin Jr. erred by denying Ravenel’s request to unseal the record in the couple’s most recent custody case.
The litigation began in October 2020, when Ravenel sought to modify a previous custody order. Both parents initially agreed to seal the file, citing sensitive issues and the potential harm disclosure could cause. Ravenel changed his position in 2022, accusing Dennis of making public statements that were inconsistent with any legitimate expectation of privacy.
His motion cited social media posts and interviews in which Dennis allegedly characterized the custody case as a “big ploy,” criticized family court lawyers and claimed she had been “silenced by gag orders” that prevented her from telling her side of the story.
Ravenel argued those statements fueled false accusations that his wealth, political connections and family name allowed him to manipulate South Carolina’s family court system.
***
***
Following a five-day hearing in February 2023, Martin awarded Ravenel sole legal and physical custody of the children – while limiting Dennis to supervised daytime visitation. The judge refused to unseal the case, however, finding the children could be “damaged by exposure of the private lives of the parties.”
Ravenel appealed that decision.
His attorney, Arielle Larsen, told the justices Martin failed to properly apply Rule 41.1 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure — which establishes a presumption of public access to court records and requires judges to consider whether less restrictive alternatives are available.
“There’s no reason why the lower court should have failed to unseal the record,” Larsen argued, describing the predicted harm to the children as a generalized assertion unsupported by specific evidence.
If the file contains identifying or sensitive information about the children, Larsen said, those portions can be redacted without concealing the entire record.
***
RELATED | ‘Southern Charm’ Case Headed to S.C. Supreme Court
***
‘WHY ARE WE HERE?’
Chief justice John Kittredge pressed Larsen to explain what prompted Ravenel to reverse his original position.
“Why are we here?” he continued. “Why does Mr. Ravenel want to unseal the record?”
Larsen pointed to Dennis’ conduct before, during and after the custody trial – claiming she shared statements about the case with an enormous social media audience while presenting herself as unable to respond fully because of court-imposed restrictions.
Kittredge questioned whether those statements were merely “theatrics” or provided a legal basis for opening the court file.
Larsen argued they were relevant under Rule 41.1 because Dennis’ own conduct undermined her claimed expectation of confidentiality. She also maintained the public had an interest in evaluating Dennis’ allegations against Ravenel and the family court system.
Justice Letitia Verdin asked how that interest should be balanced against the central principle governing family court proceedings: the best interests of the children.
Larsen argued the two concerns were not necessarily in conflict. She said Ravenel was found to be a fit parent and maintained the public should be able to examine the evidence supporting the court’s custody decision — particularly after the integrity of the judicial system had been publicly questioned.
James also asked whether the court could release the records while redacting the children’s names, birthdates and other identifying information. Larsen agreed that redaction was available, although she acknowledged some of the same identifying information is already contained in records from earlier, unsealed custody cases.
“You can’t bring it back in once it’s already been exposed,” she said.
***
DENNIS CITES ACTUAL HARM
***
Davis argued Ravenel faces a substantial obstacle: he initially agreed that the record should be sealed and stipulated that the requirements of Rule 41.1 had been satisfied.
He said Martin later reviewed the relevant factors and determined the children’s interests outweighed Ravenel’s desire to clear his name publicly.
Davis also disputed Ravenel’s characterization of the court’s concerns as merely speculative. He said the family court identified actual consequences the children had already experienced because of the publicity surrounding their parents.
According to Davis, the children left their home, schools and friends when the family moved to Aiken to escape public attention. He said they had also experienced difficulty arranging playdates, experienced exclusion from a classmate’s party and other parents drawing conclusions about them.
Those findings, Davis argued, supported Martin’s determination that releasing additional records could cause further harm.
He also drew a distinction between accusations made on social media and findings issued by a court. A parent’s social media post is one thing, Davis argued, but a judge’s formal findings carry the authority of the state and could be “far more powerful and damaging.”
Dennis’ position was also supported by the children’s guardian ad litem who opposed unsealing the file at the family court level.
***
?????
— FITSNews (@fitsnews) September 15, 2026
If you're tracking the S.C. supreme court case today involving @ThomasRavenel and @KathrynDennis, here's a brief breakdown of what the case is about.
The attorney arguing for Ravenel (Ari Larsen) and the attorney arguing for Dennis (@SenTomDavisSC) have both done… pic.twitter.com/VOrDSxYEbC
***
Verdin noted, however, that South Carolina case law generally requires someone seeking secrecy to identify the particular records that warrant protection — not simply request a blanket seal over an entire case.
“Has your client ever set forth a list of documents that she believes should remain sealed?” Verdin asked.
“No,” Davis responded, acknowledging the original consent order was a blanket seal.
He noted Ravenel later presented a narrower alternative — releasing only the final custody order — but said Martin considered and rejected that option after determining even the findings in the order would harm the children.
Kittredge appeared especially focused on whether the harmful information concerned the children themselves or primarily Dennis.
“For a record to be sealed, you just can’t have a blanket (seal),” Kittredge said.
The chief justice noted the final order was highly favorable to Ravenel because it contained “incredibly damaging information” about Dennis.
“Why is that information somehow shielded when it doesn’t impact the children?” he asked.
Davis replied that Martin found criticism of a parent could be imputed to the children — and cited specific examples of how the publicity had already affected them.
***
A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT FAMILY COURT RULING
Davis characterized the dispute as a case of first impression — meaning the Supreme Court has not previously decided precisely how Rule 41.1’s presumption of public access should interact with family court’s overriding duty to protect children.
He urged the justices to defer to Martin, who presided over years of litigation, reviewed thousands of pages of testimony and observed the witnesses firsthand.
The proper question, Davis argued, is not whether the high court might have reached a different result — but whether Martin abused his discretion.
Larsen disputed that standard, arguing appellate review of family court cases is de novo and that the lower court did not identify facts sufficient to justify continued secrecy.
She also disclosed during her rebuttal that a fourth family court action involving the parties was filed in Berkeley County in 2026 — and that case is not sealed.
Kittredge then pressed her on an important factual distinction: whether the sealed case contains information about Dennis’ conduct that was not litigated in the two earlier, open custody cases.
Larsen acknowledged her conduct was addressed further in the third case and formed part of the alleged change in circumstances. She nevertheless argued Dennis could not publicly circulate what Ravenel characterized as mistruths while using the sealed record to prevent scrutiny of those claims.
“When you enter into a family court arena, there is an inherent risk that your reputation is going to be at stake,” Larsen said.
The Supreme Court could affirm the existing seal, order the entire record opened, direct the release of only the final order or return the case to family court for a document-by-document review and targeted redactions.
Whatever the result, the court’s eventual opinion could extend far beyond Ravenel and Dennis — establishing new guidance for how South Carolina judges must balance children’s privacy against the constitutional presumption that judicial proceedings remain open to the public.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
