In South Carolina’s family courts, the rules are written to corner parents into an impossible choice. If you challenge a flawed judgment, you risk missing your deadline to appeal. If you file your appeal on time, you lose the chance to have your motions heard in the trial court. This legal no-man’s-land is not just technical—it is a deliberate trap that denies due process to parents like William Sewell and protects judges like Mandy Kimmons from ever being held accountable.
The Rulebook That Boxes You In
Here’s how it works:
- Rule 59(e), SCRCP allows a litigant to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment. In most states, this motion pauses the clock on the appeal deadline until the judge rules on it.
- Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR sets South Carolina apart. There is no tolling. The deadline to appeal continues to run, whether a Rule 59(e) motion is pending or not.
- Rule 205, SCACR strips jurisdiction from the family court as soon as a Notice of Appeal is filed, punting all authority to the Court of Appeals.
This means a parent like Sewell faces a Catch-22:
- File only a motion, and you risk blowing the 30-day appeal deadline.
- File an appeal to preserve your rights, and the judge declares her hands tied, refusing to rule on your motion.
It’s a rigged game. The rules are contradictory by design, and the litigant loses no matter which path he takes.
Kimmons’ Predictable Escape Hatch
In Sewell’s case, this played out with grim predictability. After issuing a deeply damaging final order, Judge Mandy Kimmons was faced with Sewell’s motions: one to alter or amend her judgment, and another to stay enforcement until the issues could be reviewed.
But once Sewell filed a timely notice of appeal to protect himself from losing his rights forever, Kimmons immediately reached for the “easy out.” Citing Rule 205, she denied both motions without prejudice, scrubbed them from the docket, and declared the matter no longer her problem.
In doing so, Kimmons avoided any responsibility for revisiting her mistakes. She kept her flawed judgment intact and shifted the burden to an appellate court that could take years to review the case—time Sewell does not have when it comes to his relationship with his child.
Denial of Due Process
This isn’t just one man’s tragedy. The system itself denies due process to any South Carolina litigant, especially in family court. Parents are forced into a corner: choose between a motion and an appeal, knowing both doors will be slammed in your face.
Judges like Kimmons exploit this loophole to duck accountability. They can make rulings that destroy families, and when challenged, simply shrug and say, “Not my jurisdiction.” By weaponizing the contradictions in South Carolina’s rules, they protect themselves while stripping parents of meaningful remedies.
With Prejudice, Without Accountability
Adding insult to injury, Kimmons stamped Sewell’s motions “with prejudice.” That phrase—usually meant to prevent a party from re-filing—was twisted here into a shield for her own errors. She effectively slammed the door on reconsideration while pretending to keep it open. It’s a move as cynical as it is destructive.
Why This Matters
Family court decisions are among the most consequential rulings any judge can make. They decide where children live, who they see, and which parent gets erased from their life. To allow judges to hide behind contradictory rules and escape scrutiny is a betrayal of the very idea of justice.
South Carolina parents deserve better than a system where accountability ends the moment a judge puts down her pen. Judges like Mandy Kimmons should not be on the bench if their first instinct is to punt responsibility rather than correct their own mistakes.
The Call for Reform
This problem isn’t abstract. It’s real. It’s destroying families. Reform is simple:
- Amend South Carolina’s rules so that Rule 59(e) motions toll the appeal period, as they do in federal court and most states.
- Require judges to rule on pending motions before appeals proceed.
- Hold judges accountable when they issue damaging rulings and then hide behind procedural games to avoid fixing them.
Until then, parents like William Sewell will remain trapped in a system designed not to deliver justice, but to shield judges from it.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
