|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
The South Carolina Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in a long-running legal battle between former Southern Charm stars Thomas Ravenel and Kathryn Dennis — but the justices will not be deciding which parent should have custody of their two children.
Instead, the court will consider whether the records underlying their bitter custody dispute should remain hidden from public view.
Oral arguments in Thomas Ravenel v. Kathryn Dennis are scheduled for 11:30 a.m. EDT on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, at Clemson University’s Brooks Center for the Performing Arts.
The case is part of a two-day special term of court – proceedings which are free and open to the public, according to the judicial branch website.
The narrow question before the justices is whether a Charleston County family court judge erred by refusing to unseal the record in the former couple’s most recent custody case.
Ravenel argues the file should be opened because court records are presumptively public — and because Dennis has repeatedly discussed the litigation and made public statements accusing him, attorneys and the South Carolina family court system of misconduct.
Dennis counters that Ravenel’s reputational concerns do not outweigh the interests of their children — whose private lives, she argues, would be further exposed if the file were released.
***
HOW THE RECORD BECAME SEALED
Ravenel and Dennis — who were never married — have two children together. Their combustible relationship fueled the early success of Bravo TV’s Charleston-based reality series Southern Charm, turning both into national celebrities.
Their custody dispute has continued through multiple court actions dating back a decade.
According to Ravenel’s appellate brief, he filed the first custody and visitation case in Charleston County in May 2016. Both parents asked for that record to be sealed, but the family court denied their request. That case ended with a custody agreement approved in June 2017 – with the file remaining open.
Dennis filed a second custody-modification action in October 2018 again seeking to seal the file. A family court judge initially granted that request in May 2019 — but reversed course one month later after concluding Dennis continued publicly discussing the litigation.
In the order reopening that file, the court found sealing served “no legitimate purpose” because the parents’ lives, their children and their custody battle had already been extensively discussed on television, social media and in the press.
The case now before the supreme court began in October 2020, when Ravenel sought another modification of the existing custody arrangement.
This time, Ravenel and Dennis agreed to a consent order sealing the record. The order provided that either parent — or a third party — could later move to have it unsealed after the parties received notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Ravenel did exactly that in October 2022, alleging Dennis had made multiple public statements inconsistent with any genuine expectation of privacy. He accused her of spreading “significant public mistruths” about the custody case and defaming Ravenel, the family court, judges and attorneys involved in the litigation.
Ravenel submitted social media posts and interviews in which Dennis allegedly characterized the custody action as a “big ploy,” criticized lawyers involved in the case and claimed she had been “silenced by gag orders” that prevented her from telling the public what was happening.
He also cited public comments accusing Ravenel of using money, political influence and the power of his family name to obtain favorable treatment in court.
***
RELATED | The Rise And Fall Of Kathryn Dennis
***
FAMILY COURT REFUSES TO OPEN FILE
A family court judge initially denied Ravenel’s motion without prejudice in November 2022 – finding a testimonial hearing was necessary before the issue could be properly decided.
Ravenel renewed the request during a five-day final hearing the following month.
According to the appellate filings, the court heard arguments from the attorneys and denied the request before receiving testimony. Ravenel’s attorneys were subsequently permitted to place testimony and evidence into the record as a proffer.
Ravenel testified he wanted the records released so the public could determine what had actually happened.
“I just want the truth to be out there for my own reputational purposes,” he told the court, according to the transcript quoted in the briefs.
Ravenel also said he was tired of allegations that he had paid off or manipulated the court system — and argued his children deserved for the public to know they were being properly cared for.
During questioning, Dennis acknowledged making or sharing several statements about the case. She also acknowledged posting a photograph of the Charleston County courthouse with the phrase “midnight justice” while the trial was underway.
In February 2023, family court judge Daniel E. Martin Jr. awarded Ravenel sole legal and physical custody of the children while limiting Dennis to supervised daytime visitation. He refused to unseal the case, however, finding the children could be “damaged by exposure of the private lives of the parties.”
Martin concluded Ravenel’s interest in defending his reputation did not outweigh the need to shield the children from harm that their parents’ history suggested was likely to recur.
Ravenel appealed that decision – which has let us to the current court fight.
***
RAVENEL: GENERALIZED HARM IS NOT ENOUGH
Ravenel’s attorneys argue the family court failed to apply the presumption that judicial records are open to the public.
Article I, Section 9 of the South Carolina Constitution provides that “all courts shall be public.” Rule 41.1 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure also requires judges considering secrecy to weigh multiple factors — including privacy interests, potential harm, public significance and whether less restrictive measures could protect sensitive information.
Ravenel argues Dennis failed to identify specific information that would harm the children if released. Instead, he says, the court relied on generalized and conclusory concerns that could be addressed through targeted redactions rather than a blanket seal over the entire file.
His brief (.pdf) also contends the public has a legitimate interest in evaluating Dennis’ accusations against the family court system and determining whether Ravenel received favorable treatment because of his wealth or political connections.
Ravenel and Dennis hail from two of the Palmetto State’s most prominent political families. He is the son of the late congressman and state senator Arthur Ravenel Jr. – and a former South Carolina state treasurer in his own right. Dennis traces her ancestry back to former U.S. vice president John C. Calhoun and longtime state Senate president Rembert Dennis.
Their contemporary fame stems from Southern Charm, a program which repeatedly presented their volatile relationship as entertainment. Ravenel’s attorneys contend that history matters. They argue both parents voluntarily placed their relationship, parenting disputes and personal struggles before the public — and that highly sensitive material from their earlier family court cases has already remained publicly accessible for years.
Even if portions of the current file contain confidential information about the children, Ravenel argues, the court could redact those portions while releasing records focused on the parents’ conduct.
His reply brief describes the children’s privacy as a potentially compelling reason to protect information specifically about them — but not as a justification for shielding everything involving their parents.
Ravenel also invokes his constitutional right as a fit parent to make decisions about his children’s welfare. Because the family court found him credible and awarded him sole custody, he argues the court should have deferred to his position that releasing the record was in their best interests.
***
RELATED | Kathryn Dennis Sentenced In DUI Case
***
DENNIS: CHILDREN’S INTERESTS COME FIRST
Dennis’ attorney argues the family court reached the correct result after weighing Ravenel’s request against the potential consequences for the children.
Her brief (.pdf) characterizes Ravenel’s primary objective as rehabilitating his own reputation — not advancing a meaningful public interest.
Dennis contends family court judges have an overriding obligation to protect children and are entitled to broad discretion when evaluating the likely effects of releasing sensitive custody records.
The children were represented by a guardian ad litem, who also opposed unsealing the file. According to Dennis’ brief, the guardian warned that the children should be exposed to the litigation only in a therapeutic setting.
Dennis’ filing rejects the suggestion that prior publicity means no additional damage can be done.
The current record includes testimony and evidence presented during a five-day trial, her attorney noted, while the prior cases were resolved through negotiated agreements. Releasing the newer file, Dennis argues, would give the parents even more personal material to use against each other publicly.
Her brief compared that prospect to supplying “nuclear weapons” after both sides had already accumulated “conventional arms.”
Dennis also points to the 2020 consent order Ravenel signed. In that order, both parents agreed there was perceived harm from disclosure and that the sensitive issues raised in the pleadings outweighed public access at that time.
Ravenel responds that circumstances changed after the order was entered — and that parties cannot permanently bargain away the public’s independent right to access court records.
***
A VERY PUBLIC FIGHT OVER A PRIVATE FILE
The Supreme Court hearing comes after both former reality stars have remained in the public eye for reasons extending well beyond their custody case.
Ravenel — who resigned as state treasurer after his 2007 federal drug indictment and later served ten months in prison — publicly floated another political comeback in 2025.
Dennis left Southern Charm after eight seasons. In May 2024, she was arrested for driving under the influence following a three-vehicle collision in Goose Creek. She was later convicted and sentenced to thirty days in jail, although she served less than half of that sentence.
She had previously been questioned during an investigation into an October 2023 hit-and-run involving a vehicle registered to her. No charges were filed in that case.
Those events are not before the supreme court and will not determine the appeal. They do, however, underscore the unusual tension at the center of the case: two parents whose relationship and personal struggles have played out publicly for years are now fighting over whether the official court record documenting their dispute should remain private.
The justices could uphold the blanket seal, order the record opened, require selective redactions or send the matter back to family court for more specific findings.
***
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.
