The latest custody order located in reporting dates to February 2023: FITSNews reported that a family court awarded Thomas Ravenel sole legal and physical custody of the two children he shares with Kathryn Dennis, while limiting Dennis to supervised daytime visits. Their current South Carolina Supreme Court case is separate: the court identifies the appeal as a dispute over whether the sealed family-court record should be made public, not a new decision about custody. The official materials confirm that justices heard oral argument on September 15, 2026, but do not establish a final ruling.
What happened in the custody case?
Dennis and Ravenel, former Southern Charm cast members and parents of two children, have been involved in custody litigation since 2016. The latest custody order identified in the available reporting is from February 2023. FITSNews reported that Family Court Judge Daniel E. Martin Jr. gave Ravenel sole legal and physical custody and restricted Dennis to supervised daytime visitation. That description is based on the outlet’s account; the official Supreme Court materials now at issue concern access to the court file, not a fresh custody ruling.
The case has generated serious, conflicting allegations. In 2018, both parents made claims about the other in court filings, as reported by Us Weekly. Those were allegations, not findings established by that coverage. They are not necessary to understand the present appeal, which centers on whether records from a later proceeding should remain sealed.
Why is the case before the South Carolina Supreme Court?
The appeal concerns the public’s access to a sealed family-court record. The South Carolina Judicial Branch case roster lists the matter as Thomas Ravenel v. Kathryn Dennis and frames the question as whether the family court erred by denying Ravenel’s motion to unseal the record. That is a narrower issue than deciding who should have custody.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute#1 Best Overall
The proceeding whose file is in dispute began in October 2020, when Ravenel filed another custody-modification action. The parties agreed to seal that record while preserving the ability to ask later for it to be unsealed. In October 2022, Ravenel sought to make it public. FITSNews reported that the family court denied his request while issuing the February 2023 custody order.
What are the parties arguing about privacy and access?
Ravenel’s position
As summarized by FITSNews, Ravenel argued that court records are presumptively public and that Dennis’s public comments about the litigation and accusations of misconduct weigh against keeping the file sealed. FITSNews quoted Ravenel, speaking as a litigant at a hearing about the records, as saying: “I just want the truth to be out there for my own reputational purposes.” The outlet said the quotation came from a hearing transcript excerpted in appellate briefs.
Rank #2
![The Southern Charm ( El embrujo del Sur ) [ NON-USA FORMAT, PAL, Reg.2 Import - Spain ]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51n9BgayTYL._SL160_.jpg)
- The Southern Charm ( El embrujo del Sur )
- The Southern Charm
- El embrujo del Sur
Dennis’s and the guardian ad litem’s position
Dennis argued that releasing sensitive material could expose the children’s private lives and cause them further harm. FITSNews also reported that the children’s guardian ad litem opposed unsealing. These are positions presented in the records dispute, not findings about what the Supreme Court will decide.
The family court’s reported reasoning
FITSNews reported that the family-court judge concluded the children could be “damaged by exposure of the private lives of the parties” and that Ravenel’s reputational interest did not outweigh protecting them. This is the outlet’s description of the court’s reasoning; the underlying order is not independently established here as a source for that quotation or summary.
Rank #3
- Factory sealed DVD
How the custody and records dispute developed
- May 2016: According to Ravenel’s appellate brief as summarized by FITSNews, he filed the first custody and visitation case in Charleston County. The court denied both parents’ request to seal that record.
- June 2017: The first case ended in a custody agreement approved by the family court. A 2017 court order is available for that earlier proceeding; it is not the later sealed file now at issue.
- October 2018: Dennis filed a custody-modification action. Contemporary coverage described competing claims in the parents’ filings, which should be understood as allegations rather than proven facts.
- May–June 2019: FITSNews reported that a judge first sealed the 2018 modification file and later reversed course, citing extensive public discussion of the family and litigation.
- October 2020: Ravenel filed another modification action. The parties agreed to seal its record while reserving the option to seek unsealing later.
- October 2022: Ravenel moved to unseal, arguing that Dennis had made public statements about the case.
- February 2023: FITSNews reported the custody award to Ravenel, supervised daytime visitation for Dennis, and the denial of Ravenel’s request to unseal the record.
- September 15, 2026: The South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral argument on the unsealing question. The court’s archived-arguments page confirms the argument date.
Has the sealed record been unsealed, or has the appeal changed custody?
The official court roster and argument archive establish the appeal’s subject and that oral argument occurred on September 15, 2026. They do not establish a final disposition after argument. On the available information, it would be inaccurate to say the Supreme Court has ordered the records released or has changed the custody arrangement. The latest custody terms located here remain those reported by FITSNews for February 2023; this does not rule out a later development not reflected in the cited materials.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
