On September 3, 2025, Dorchester County Family Court Judge Mandy Kimmons issued an order that reveals the dark reality of how South Carolina family courts manipulate procedural rules to strip litigants of due process.
The Order That Ended Everything
William Sewell, a Summerville mechanic and father, filed multiple critical motions after a devastating final order in his divorce and custody case:
- A Motion to Alter or Amend the Final Order (Rule 59(e), SCRCP).
- A Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Final Order (Rule 62, SCRCP).
- A Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (to waive court costs).
- A Motion to Appoint Counsel (because he could not afford representation).
- A request for a Turner v. Rogers review, a constitutional safeguard meant to ensure indigent litigants are not jailed without due process.
Instead of hearing these motions, Judge Kimmons issued a two-page order denying the first two “without prejudice” and declaring that all related hearings—including those on Sewell’s right to counsel, right to proceed without crushing fees, and his Turner protections—were canceled outright.
The Catch-22
This is the very definition of a catch-22. South Carolina law required Sewell to file his notice of appeal within a tight deadline. But once he did, Kimmons used it as an escape hatch, declaring her hands tied by Rule 205, SCACR, and refusing to touch his motions.
The result?
- Sewell lost the chance to argue errors in the final order.
- He lost his right to seek appointed counsel.
- He lost his right to ask for fees to be waived.
- He lost his right to a Turner v. Rogers review, which is a federal due process requirement.
The court effectively said: “Because you followed the rules, we will ignore your rights.”
A Convenient Exit for Judges
For judges like Kimmons, this procedural trick is more than convenience—it’s protection. By pushing the case to the Court of Appeals, she avoids having to defend her own judgment, admit mistakes, or confront allegations of bias and misconduct.
It’s judicial self-preservation dressed up as procedure. The result? Accountability disappears.
Meanwhile, the Power Players Circle
On the very day Sewell learned his hearings were canceled, he ran into attorney Donnie Gamache and politician-lawyer Gil Gatch at the clerk’s office. Both men have profited handsomely from the same family court machine that is crushing him.
Gatch once told Sewell point-blank: “Pay or you’re gonna go to jail.” Now, standing shoulder to shoulder with Gamache, he embodies the incestuous web of attorneys and politicians who run South Carolina’s family courts like a closed club.
The Cost of “Justice”
Adding insult to injury, Sewell still cannot obtain the necessary transcripts for his appeal. Gamache, his opposing counsel, has refused to produce them—while knowing the appeal deadline is ticking. Without transcripts, Sewell’s chance at meaningful appellate review is gutted.
The message is clear: you can follow every rule, file every motion, and assert every right—and the system will still close its doors on you.
The Larger Pattern
This isn’t just about William Sewell. This is how South Carolina’s family courts operate every day:
- Force parents into procedural traps.
- Cancel hearings without due process.
- Nullify constitutional safeguards like Turner v. Rogers.
- Shield judges from accountability while draining families financially and emotionally.
The Sewell case shows why reform is urgent. As long as judges can squash hearings with the stroke of a pen and blame “procedure,” South Carolina families will never see real justice.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
