By Michael Phillips

When South Carolina father William Sewell submitted signed, notarized witness statements alleging that his ex allowed their 3- to 5-year-old daughter to sip from alcoholic seltzers—so much so that other children began asking if it was okay—he assumed the family court would take this seriously.

They didn’t.

Instead, according to Sewell, “This evidence was suppressed by attorneys and the GAL.” In other words, it was buried—never seen, never considered, and certainly never used to protect his daughter. And yet, he’s the one facing contempt and the threat of jail time.

The question we should be asking isn’t just whether it’s legal in South Carolina for a parent to give alcohol to a minor. That’s murky enough. But the better question is: Why is this behavior swept under the rug when it’s the mother, while the father is micromanaged and punished for far less?

South Carolina Law: A Double-Edged Sword

South Carolina’s alcohol laws are clear… and contradictory. The legal drinking age is 21. Minors under 21 cannot purchase, consume, or possess alcohol. Giving alcohol to a minor is generally a misdemeanor offense punishable by fines and potential jail time.

But—like many states—South Carolina has a “parental exception.” That means a parent may legally give their own child alcohol at home, usually within a limited context (like a religious ritual or a taste of wine with dinner). What the law doesn’t say is that this exception gives parents carte blanche to let preschoolers sip hard seltzers or normalize underage drinking in front of other children. And it certainly doesn’t say that doing so won’t matter in family court.

Legal, but Not Safe

Just because something isn’t criminal doesn’t mean it’s safe, appropriate, or in the child’s best interest. Family courts are supposed to evaluate parenting decisions based on the well-being of the child. But far too often, courts ignore evidence of troubling behavior—especially when it comes from a father, particularly one representing himself.

What happened to William Sewell is all too familiar: a mother’s questionable behavior gets glossed over, while the father is dissected under a microscope. If the roles were reversed, it’s hard to believe any court would look the other way. The mother would claim endangerment. The state would likely investigate. And the father would be labeled a danger to his child. But when it’s the mother, excuses are made, and systems go silent.

Family Court’s Quiet Corruption

What makes this worse is that Sewell had credible, notarized statements. These weren’t vague accusations. These were eyewitness accounts from a relative, prepared legally. And yet, they were “suppressed” in the Dorchester County Family Court—a word that, in any other courtroom, would raise red flags.

How does that happen? The answer lies in the cozy triangle of power between opposing attorneys, court-appointed guardians ad litem (GALs), and judges. Evidence inconvenient to their narrative—especially when it paints the mother in a negative light—is often ignored or dismissed as “not relevant.” Meanwhile, every minor misstep by the father becomes grounds to deny custody or impose sanctions.

No Accountability, No Reform

If we’re going to take child safety seriously, then the law needs to apply evenly. Even in Dorchester County. A parent giving a preschooler alcoholic seltzer—whether technically legal or not—is behavior that should be questioned by any court tasked with protecting children. Suppressing that evidence doesn’t just harm the child—it erodes public trust in the entire family law system.

The law may be inconsistent. But our standards for parenting shouldn’t be. And neither should the consequences.

---

This is Part 5 in our ongoing series, “Court of Ruin: The William Sewell Files.”

Michael Phillips is a writer, father, and advocate for family court reform. He is the founder of the REBUILT Justice Project and editor-in-chief of The Republic Dispatch and Father & Co.

Special thanks to Bruce Eden whose research, caselaw review, and personal insight into family law helped shape the foundation of this article. Your work continues to educate and inspire those fighting for transparency and reform. Bruce is the Director of Dads Against Discrimination (DADS)–NJ & NY.

All claims in this article are based on the personal experiences and allegations made by William H. Sewell. This article includes opinions and reporting based on interviews, court documents, and publicly available information. Any named parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless proven otherwise.