I am going to try to make sense out of the latest court filing by Kathryn Calhoun Dennis. Last Wednesday she filed two motions to get emergency temporary custody of the children based on violation of the parenting plan and the temporary custody order.
The first thing I want to discuss is Kathryn’s drug tests. As I posted here, Kathryn is claiming to have been clean and sober since leaving rehab. I received information from credible sources that after about two weeks back in Charleston she was drinking and getting high. In fact, the cast goes down to New Orleans this season and people there said everyone, including Kathryn was very drunk. I was giving Kathryn the benefit of the doubt until actual court documents were leaks.
Back on April 3rd, The Daily Mail started their story with the following…
Southern Charm’s Thomas Ravenel has renewed his bid for sole custody of his children as their infamously volatile mother continues to stall on court-ordered drug tests. Court documents seen exclusively by DailyMail.com show that Kathryn Dennis has been evading the mandated drugs and alcohol tests since last November and now risks being held in contempt.
Now, five weeks later, Kathryn’s motion obtained by Radar Online, claims that she has passed several drug tests between January and March of this year. The motion provided the following dates for those tests: January 20, February 1. February 17, March 17, March 20, March 26, and March 27.
The February 1 test is the test that Amy Feinstein posted on Reality Tea that we discussed here. In that same story, Feinstein said that all of Kathryn’s records from the time she got out of rehab to the present had been provided to Reality Tea, “But today, Kathryn’s lawyers gave her permission to release all of her tests, hair and urine, from when she returned from rehab until now, exclusively to Reality Tea.” For whatever reason, that article chose only to show the February 1 hair test. The hair tests are once a month and the urine tests are weekly according to Feinstein. So if February 1 is a hair test, should January and March also have a test date in the first week of the month? Why is she testing two days in a row in March?
And then there is the big question, why is the judge, according to the DM story threatening her with contempt if she is taking the tests and they are directly reported to the courts and both attorneys? And if they have these clean tests since she got out of rehab in early August, why not list them to show a long record of clean tests? And why submit these dates in a motion filed mid-May with no test dates since March?
None of this makes any sense. nor does the Soberlink that she has to blow into at 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. Even I am usually sober at those hours, but you can drink a lot of merlot from nine until 1 am and still be sober at 10 a.m. Allegedly. The drug tests above, the Soberlink and four parenting classes were presented as evidence that Kathryn has cleaned up her act. No mention of living arrangements.
The list of reasons that Thomas should lose the kids is a lot longer and more compelling. The motion claims that Thomas has broken the temporary custody order. Kathryn has not had visitation since February 6, 2017. The agreement states that she has a supervised visitation every other weekend at Kathryn’s mother’s house to be supervised by her mother. The motion states that Thomas encourages the kids to refer to the nanny as mom and Kathryn as Kathryn, a violation of the court parenting plan. The first claim listed is that Thomas disparages her on social media. I have not seen any evidence of that lately.
She also mentions that the nanny would not let Kathryn hold her child at the reception Thomas had at his house after the christening. Kathryn showed up to that after causing a huge disruption at the actual christening and being escorted out. I don’t think she should bring up in the motion that she showed up uninvited to Thomas’ house and was threatened with the police if she didn’t leave. She says that Thomas sends her threatening texts and emails.
Then she accuses Thomas of using cocaine and mushrooms when he has the children. This is the video I said I would not post last week. In the video, there does appear to be a bag of something that Thomas eats while a female guests says something like, “Are you going to eat that now? Don’t eat that now!” and he does. I didn’t see any cocaine use. I would have found nothing remarkable about the video if I had not been told what to look for. She claims Thomas shave off all his body hair before his drug test last June. She says he drinks when he has the children. She says Thomas has exhibited violent and abusive tendencies toward her and the kids.
She asks the court to have Thomas undergo a psychological examine to see if there are issues from all the drinking and drugging and because he shaved off all his body hair. That’s an example of the weird wording. What does shaving his body hair to avoid a hair test have to do with his psychological exam?
The motion asks for Thomas to be fined $50K for evading the drug test by shaving. It also asks for $50K toward Kathryn’s legal fees because he has a lot more money than she does and for him to pay the fees for the current motions because he caused the filings to be necessary.
The second motion to show cause simply addresses all the infractions alleged against Thomas concerning the parenting document. Kathryn is supposed to be notified of special events like the christening or a graduation, or a little league game. She is claiming he violated that by not allowing her to attend the reception. He can have a reception at his house after the christening without inviting Kathryn. Particularly if Kathryn just caused a huge disruption at the christening.
She claims that Thomas moved to California without telling her taking the kids with him. This is a big deal that the court will not appreciate. That said, Thomas is back in Charleston now.
In addition to suggesting parental alienation by the nanny allowing the babies to call her mommy, she wants the nanny and her daughter away from the kids. She says that the daughter, is a minor who Thomas allows to drink in front of the children. She claims that the nanny is sleeping with Thomas. She also says the nanny makes disparaging comments to her during visitation hand offs. By the way, the motion refers to several amendments that purport to substantiate all of her claims.
Kathryn is asking for custody with Thomas getting SUPERVISED visits. But the motion seems to know that is not going to happen so it offers an alternative of her getting unsupervised visitation and wants make-up time for all the weekends she missed when the kids were in California. She also wants also wants $10,000 for every day he continues to deny her visitation and attorney fees.
And that is the latest version of events.
*This material is copyrighted by Tamara Tattles Media, LLC. Theft of intellectual property by messageboards will be reported to the hosting site as a DCMA violation. Links to this article are required.*