The Fight After the Final Order

On July 14, 2025, the Family Court of Dorchester County, South Carolina, issued its Final Order in the case of Sewell v. Sewell. The ruling awarded sole custody of the couple's daughter to the mother, imposed a $60,000 attorney’s fee against the father, and ordered him to refinance or sell his pre-marital home to satisfy the judgment. For most litigants, this would be the end of a painful process. But for William Sewell, a pro se father with no attorney, no money, and a disability that was never accommodated, the Final Order was just the beginning of a new chapter—a last-ditch legal scramble to protect what little remains of his rights, his home, and his child.

Sewell is now pursuing two rarely granted post-judgment motions: a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend and a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment. These motions are legal longshots, but they are his only hope.

Two Motions, One Narrow Door

Rule 59(e) gives a party ten days to ask the trial court to correct errors or reconsider issues that were raised but not ruled upon. It's essential to preserve issues for appeal. But in family court, judges rarely grant it.

Rule 60(b), on the other hand, is even more limited. It allows a party to reopen a judgment only for clerical error, newly discovered evidence, or fraud—but not just any fraud. Under South Carolina law, only extrinsic fraud—fraud that kept someone from presenting their case or being heard—qualifies. Intrinsic fraud, like false testimony, isn’t enough.

In Sewell’s case, he alleges that both types occurred.

Judicial Connections That Weren’t Disclosed

After the Final Order was entered, Sewell discovered that Judge Mandy Kimmons, who presided over the trial, previously served as a state legislator. During her time in office, she received political support from Donnie Gamache, the attorney who represented Sewell’s ex-wife. This connection was never disclosed on the record.

Sewell believes that this conflict tainted the proceedings and may explain why every single one of his pre-trial motions—12 in total—was denied, while no motions by the opposing party were rejected. It may also explain why he was ordered to pay $60,000 in attorney’s fees, despite being unemployed and applying for public assistance.

In his motion, Sewell argues that these facts, had they been disclosed, would have justified recusal. Instead, the court barreled forward. The appearance of partiality, he says, is not just unethical—it’s fraud on the court.

The Weaponization of Procedure

Throughout the case, Sewell fought for the right to be heard. He filed motions for appointed counsel under Turner v. Rogers (564 U.S. 431), which held that civil litigants facing jail or loss of rights must receive alternative safeguards if counsel is not provided. The court denied him repeatedly.

He also raised objections to the GAL’s (Guardian ad Litem’s) conduct, alleging bias and a failure to meet with him. Still, the court ordered him to pay half the GAL’s fees—without stating how much was owed, violating basic principles of due process.

When Sewell tried to file discovery materials or raise objections to evidence he had never seen, he was told he had no standing. Meanwhile, the court allowed the Plaintiff’s attorney to submit articles from a local journalist into evidence against him.

“You’re told you can appeal, but they know you can’t afford it,” Sewell said. “You’re told you can file a motion, but they don’t read it. And when you ask for fairness, they accuse you of being difficult.”

Financial Punishment and Legal Retaliation

The court ordered Sewell to refinance or sell his home—property he owned before the marriage—to satisfy the attorney’s fee judgment and pay equity to his ex-wife. If he can’t refinance in six months, the house goes on the market. He lives there with his tools and work truck. Without it, he loses his home and his business.

No payment plan. No inquiry into his ability to pay. No explanation.

He was also ordered to pay child support and uninsured medical expenses. Meanwhile, he was denied access to his daughter for long periods and given limited phone contact—calls that were often monitored or disrupted, he alleges.

The Final Order reads more like a foreclosure notice than a custody decree.

An Unfair Fight with No Referee

Sewell is now asking the court to reconsider, citing newly discovered evidence of judicial bias, failure to rule on constitutional claims, and errors of law. His Rule 59(e) motion lays out each error, one by one.

He also filed a Motion to Stay Enforcement, asking the court not to force him to refinance or sell his home while his motion—and possibly an appeal—is pending.

If the court denies his 59(e) motion, Sewell will file under Rule 60(b)(3) for extrinsic fraud. If that fails, he’ll try to appeal, even if it means sleeping in his truck to afford transcript fees.

A System Built to Exhaust You

Family court claims to be about the best interests of the child, but what happens when the system drives a parent into homelessness, debt, and despair? What message does it send when asking for constitutional rights is treated as combativeness?

These courts are closed to cameras. Their transcripts are costly. Their orders are often boilerplate. Most litigants give up long before the final hearing. Fewer still file motions afterward. Almost none win.

But Sewell is still fighting—not just for his rights, but for his child.

“They can take my house,” he said, “but they’re not going to take the truth.”

Michael Phillips is a journalist and advocate focused on parental rights, disability access, and court transparency. He publishes The Thunder Report and MDBayNews, and contributes to Father & Co.