What Ohio must change so this never happens to another child
A visiting judge kept my sons away from my then-fiancé after saying in court that he "appears to be a very nice person." The written order that followed went further than what the judge said from the bench. These are the changes I am asking for, based on what happened in front of this judge.
Changes needed in Ohio law
- The written order must match the ruling from the bench. When a judge rules out loud, the journal entry should state the same terms, including how long the order lasts. Any difference should be explained in writing.
- Findings before restricting parenting time. An order that keeps children away from a parent's partner should state the facts the judge relied on and how the partner harms the children.
- No ruling before the time to reply has run. A motion should not be decided before the moving party's time to reply to the opposition has passed, unless the entry states an emergency.
- No orders against a parent minutes after her lawyer leaves. When a court lets a parent's lawyer withdraw, it should not go on that day to issue orders against the parent on other matters.
- A departing judge rules or hands off in writing. A visiting judge who leaves a case should rule on pending motions or list them in the transfer entry so they are not left waiting.
What Senate Bill 174 should add
Senate Bill 174 of the 136th General Assembly, sponsored by Senators Theresa Gavarone and Paula Hicks-Hudson, rewrites Ohio custody law. It replaces "residential parent," shared parenting and sole custody with court-approved parenting plans. It passed the Senate on November 12, 2025, and it is now in the House Judiciary Committee, which last heard it on June 10, 2026. It is not law yet.
- What I am asking lawmakers to add. Before a court limits who may be around the children during a parent's time, it should make written findings tied to the children's best interest, and the written order should match what was said in court.
Judge Joseph Giulitto, a retired judge of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, sat by assignment as the judge on my divorce case, Summit County Domestic Relations Court, DR-2022-03-0667, from July 28, 2023 until it was transferred on January 22, 2025. At a hearing on October 4, 2023 he said my then-fiancé "appears to be a very nice person," and then ordered that my sons not be around him. The written order eight days later went further than what he said from the bench.
What happened
The case was transferred to him on July 28, 2023 (docket #279; certificate of assignment #280, 8/1/23). On October 4, 2023 he heard my ex-husband's motion to keep my sons away from my then-fiancé and granted it from the bench. He said it would last "until the divorce is over." The written order of October 12 had no end date and reached "any other time," including school and activities. In 2024 he denied my request to release my own house-sale money for a lawyer before my time to reply had run, and he went on to issue orders against me right after my lawyer was allowed to withdraw. In January 2025 he gave notice that he was retiring as a visiting judge, and the case was transferred with my motions still unruled (notice #568, 1/10/25; transfer #580, 1/22/25).
At a glance: Because of his order I spent weekends with my sons in hotels and then rented a condo. What I paid comes to about $29,498, plus about $5,000 my mother paid for furniture. When he left, four of my filings were waiting, the oldest for 61 days.
1. Who he is, and when he was on my case
- July 28, 2023. The case was transferred to him from Judge Hoffman (docket #279). The Supreme Court of Ohio's certificate of assignment followed on August 1 (#280).
- He was a visiting judge. A later certificate describes him as "a retired judge of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division" (certificate of assignment, filed 6/3/24, #460). He signed his orders "Visiting Judge."
- January 10, 2025. He filed a notice that "he is retiring as retired visiting judge" and asked the Chief Justice to assign the case to a different judge (#568).
- January 22, 2025. The case was transferred to Judge Mark Wiest (#580).
2. What I believe went wrong, strongest first
The October 4, 2023 hearing
David Anthony represented me at this hearing. The full account, with timestamps from the official court audio, is in the October 4, 2023 hearing section of his page. The three statements I believe matter most:
- "Times are changing." Just before ruling he said: "I know that times are changing, and maybe the older generations are not up to speed with the modern way of living" (official court audio, 10/4/23, about 1:39:05–1:39:13). Jud.Cond.R. 2.3(A) (bias); 2.2 (impartiality and fairness)
- A restriction despite his own words. "They seem to have accepted [my then-fiancé]. He appears to be a very nice person" (1:40:39–1:40:44). He then ordered my sons kept away from him. No witness testified that my then-fiancé had harmed my sons. Jud.Cond.R. 2.2
- Pressure to settle. "Maybe the two sides should get together and try to get this matter resolved… so that you can reintroduce your children to [my then-fiancé] again" (1:41:39–1:41:48). Jud.Cond.R. 2.6(B) (a judge may encourage settlement but shall not coerce a party into it)
Other problems at the same hearing, which I see as less serious: he said at the start, "I have not read the reports because they are not available" (0:07:18), and the guardian's report was not due until February 1; he let the counselor's letter be described over my lawyer's objection, though she was not there to be questioned (about 1:02:30); and he ruled right after the last witness without closing arguments (about 1:39). Jud.Cond.R. 2.5(A); 2.6(A)
More from the same hearing:
- His own guardian did not support the order. The court's guardian said he had no concerns about my then-fiancé and that the home was appropriate, and he agreed that less restrictive orders were available (official court audio, 10/4/23, about 1:09:29–1:09:54 and 1:15:31–1:15:43). The judge chose the broadest order and did not say why. Jud.Cond.R. 2.2; 2.5(A); R.C. 3109.051
- Reasons based on guesses and on my divorce. He admitted he did not know, then held it against me: "I don't know that you talked to the children about being introduced to this person that you are now engaged to. You just did it on your own, hoping that they would accept it" (about 1:40:23–1:40:35). He guessed at how my sons might react: "Sometimes the children will respond immediately… Sometimes they will respond at a later time, and the response could be very positive or it could be very negative" (about 1:39:42–1:39:58). He tied the order to my divorce, not to anything my then-fiancé had done: "Couldn't we wait introducing the new person to the children until the divorce is over?" (about 1:41:09–1:41:14). And he said, "I'm not going to be around to listen to see whether or not you obey that particular recommendation that I'm making" (about 1:41:52–1:42:01). Jud.Cond.R. 2.2; 2.3(B) (a judge shall not show bias based on marital status)
- He argued my ex-husband's side. While my lawyer was cross-examining my ex-husband about an exchange where the boys were not handed over to my then-fiancé, the judge broke in: "Counsel, it seems to me it would be just everyday common sense that if somebody's a stranger [to] pick up the children, that whoever's sending the children by a stranger would communicate…" (about 0:47:51–0:48:08). Jud.Cond.R. 2.2; 2.6(A)
The written order went further than the ruling from the bench
At the end of the hearing he said, "Counsel will prepare an entry accordingly" (1:42:50). The written order was filed on October 12, 2023 (docket #303, "ORDER / RE: PARENTING TIME; GAL REPORT"). It does not show who prepared it.
| What he said in court, October 4, 2023 (official court audio) | What the written order says, October 12, 2023 (#303) | |
|---|---|---|
| How long | "You will not have them around [my then-fiancé] until the divorce is over" (1:41:28–1:41:33) | No end date. The order is "subject to further order of the Court." |
| What it covers | "Your visitation will continue. The children will not be in the presence or accompanied by [my then-fiancé]" (1:42:24–1:42:34) | "Defendant… shall not exercise her parenting time in the presence of her paramour, [my then-fiancé]; and Defendant shall not permit [my then-fiancé] to be in the presence of the children during Defendant's parenting time or at any other time, including but not limited to, the children's academic and extracurricular activities." |
| Reasons given | "These children have enough on their plate" (1:42:05); no finding that my then-fiancé posed any risk | "Based upon the Motion of the Plaintiff, the evidence submitted, and for good cause shown." No findings. |
Jud.Cond.R. 2.2 and 2.5(A); R.C. 3109.051 (the factors a court considers in deciding parenting time)
September 14, 2023: permission granted before I could respond
On September 7, 2023 Lisa Dean asked for permission to file an amended complaint (#295). The judge's order granting it was faxed on September 13 and filed September 14, seven days later. It says only that the request was "well-taken" (#297). Under the civil rules I had fourteen days to respond. The amended complaint added claims against new third-party defendants (#298).
Civ.R. 6(C)(1) (fourteen days to respond to a motion); Jud.Cond.R. 2.6(A)
February 28, 2024: my own money for a lawyer, denied on an entry written by the other side
On February 21, 2024 my lawyer, Candace Kim-Knox, asked the court to release my share of the money from the sale of our marital home so I could pay for my case (docket #346). Lisa Dean opposed it the next day (#347). On February 28 the judge denied it in one sentence: "For good cause, Defendant's Motion for Release of Sale Proceeds from Marital Residence is hereby DENIED." The order is marked "Submitted and approved by: /s/ Lisa Carey Dean" (#350). There was no hearing and no reason given. Under the civil rules I had seven days after her opposition to reply; the ruling came before that time ran. My lawyer moved to withdraw the next day (#352, 2/29/24).
Jud.Cond.R. 2.6(A) (right to be heard); 2.2; Civ.R. 6(C)(1) (seven days to reply)
March 4, 2024: told I had no money, then the guardian was paid from the same escrow
At the March 4, 2024 conference my lawyer told the judge: "her retainer is almost completely exhausted. My client has indicated to me that she has no more funds. So, I did file a motion to have funds [released] from the sale of the marital property…" (official court audio, 3/4/24, about 0:02:25–0:02:43). He had already denied that request (#350). After she withdrew, it came up again: "You issued an order on that. You denied it?" "Right." (about 0:07:13–0:07:17). The conference moved on.
Later in the same conference the judge asked, "Is there any reason why once [the guardian] files a request for the additional fees, why… those fees cannot be paid from the funds now in escrow?" and said the guardian "would be paid from the funds in escrow" (about 0:44:08–0:44:52). On April 23, 2024 he ordered another $2,250 for the guardian, to be "paid out of the funds currently on deposit in escrow" (#435). Under the agreement adopted in the decree, the $59,670.48 left in escrow went to my ex-husband (#466).
The guardian-fee orders were written and approved by the guardian himself. There was no hearing, and the only reason given was that his extra hours were "extraordinary." The February 5, 2024 order gave me four days, until February 9, to pay my $750 half in certified funds, and it says "sixteen (20) hours" (#337). The April 23 order says "sixteen (30) hours" (#435). The February 27 and March 20, 2024 fee orders (#349, #391) are not viewable online.
Jud.Cond.R. 2.2; 2.6(A); 2.5(A)
March 4, 2024: orders against me right after my lawyer was let go
At a settlement conference on March 4, 2024, the judge granted my lawyer's motion to withdraw and "excused her from the hearing." The entry then says: "Subsequently the court heard issues related to the status of discovery and other issues related to finalizing this matter" (judgment entry, filed 3/6/24, #362; withdrawal entry #358). In the same sitting, now without a lawyer, I was ordered to hand over three years of tax returns and my bank statements, and to sign a release in a separate lawsuit of mine within four days. The court also "ordered counsel for Plaintiff to prepare a proposed Agreement respecting Plaintiff's position on the parenting issues to Defendant." Lisa Dean submitted and approved the entry.
The audio of that conference shows more. Before letting my lawyer go he said, "I'm somewhat reluctant to grant the motion" (official court audio, 3/4/24, about 0:00:55), and "If she withdraws, I will postpone the trial" (about 0:05:26). Then he told her, "You're free to leave" (about 0:06:53), and went on with me alone. Later he told me to tell the lawyer I would hire about the new trial dates (about 0:42:06–0:42:15), so he knew I would be looking for a lawyer. Then he turned to the other side: "Ms. Dean, you've taken some notes. Would you be kind enough to draft an entry?" (about 0:42:19–0:42:20).
He had not read the guardian's report, but asked me to accept it. He said, "I didn't know that there was a report filed… It's pretty lengthy… I'll make sure that I read that before I leave" (about 0:29:15–0:29:22). Then he asked me, without a lawyer, "How do you feel about the recommendations that are being made right here in the courtroom?" (about 0:29:33–0:29:35), and proposed having Lisa Dean "draft what in essence would be the allocation of parental rights as outlined here and as outlined in the report… Is that acceptable to you?" (about 0:31:32–0:32:07). At the end he confirmed: "Ms. Dean… you are to prepare a proposal on the custody based on the contents of the report" (about 0:45:00–0:45:11).
Jud.Cond.R. 2.6(A); 2.6(B); 2.5(A); 2.2
November 13, 2024: my subpoenas quashed without a hearing or a reason
In October 2024, representing myself, I subpoenaed records from my sons' counselor, the custody evaluator, the supervised-visit center and three others (docket, 10/7/24). Lisa Dean moved to quash them on October 25 (#496). On November 13 the judge granted the motion "for good cause shown," on an entry submitted by Lisa Dean, with no hearing and no reasons (#520). To be fair, the time for me to respond had probably run, and I had not filed a response. My complaint is that subpoenas for the records at the center of my case were wiped out in one sentence.
Jud.Cond.R. 2.6(A); 2.2
He left with my motions waiting
When he filed his retirement notice on January 10, 2025, and when the case was transferred on January 22, these were still unruled:
| Filed | What I asked for | Days waiting on 1/10/25 | Days waiting on 1/22/25 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/22/24 (#539) | Motion for contempt for not following the court's order | 49 | 61 |
| 12/3/24 (#541) | Motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law | 38 | 50 |
| 12/26/24 (#559) | Motion to request witnesses | 15 | 27 |
| 1/2/25 (#560) | Objection to the child support agency's mistake-of-fact determination | 8 | 20 |
To be fair: a hearing on my contempt motion had been set for January 16, 2025, and it was continued at the request of my newly hired lawyer (#576–577). Jud.Cond.R. 2.5(A) (decide matters promptly)
A smaller one: April 22, 2024
He dismissed my April 15, 2024 contempt motion without a hearing because I had put two case numbers on it, my divorce case and my protection-order case, instead of directing that it be filed in the right case (#421). The mistake was mine, and I see this as a minor point. Jud.Cond.R. 2.2
3. Every ruling and hearing, by date
- July 28, 2023 Case transferred to him #279
- August 30, 2023 Order setting deposition, discovery, pretrial and trial dates after a status hearing where I had no lawyer #287. The same day, Lisa Dean filed the motion to keep my sons away from my then-fiancé #288.
- September 14, 2023 Granted Lisa Dean leave to amend, seven days after her request #297
- October 4, 2023 Hearing on that motion; ruling from the bench (section 2)
- October 12, 2023 Written order, broader than the ruling from the bench #303
- December 5, 2023 Granted David Anthony's withdrawal #321
- February 5, 2024 Ordered $1,500 more for the guardian, my half due in four days #337
- February 28, 2024 Denied release of my house-sale money #350
- March 1, 2024 Granted my lawyer's request to attend the March 4 conference by video #357
- March 4, 2024 Settlement conference; my lawyer withdrew and orders followed #358, #362
- April 22, 2024 Dismissed my contempt motion for listing two case numbers #421
- April 23, 2024 Ordered $2,250 more for the guardian, paid from the house-sale escrow #435
- May 22 and June 4, 2024 Show-cause orders on my contempt motions against my ex-husband, each within six days of my filing #454, #461
- July 17, 2024 Decree of divorce adopting the parties' agreement from the July 10 final hearing #466
- November 13, 2024 Quashed my subpoenas #520
- January 10 and 22, 2025 Retirement notice; case transferred with my motions unruled #568, #580
4. What his order cost me
Because I lived with my then-fiancé, his ruling forced me to spend weekends with my sons in hotels and then rent a condo. It cost me an enormous amount of money, time and stress, and I had psychogenic seizures from being overwhelmed.
- The first booking. I booked the first hotel weekend on October 5, 2023, the day after the hearing.
- Weekends in hotels and short-term rentals, October 6 to November 26, 2023. Five weekend stays with my sons. I paid for four of them, $1,204.47. My then-fiancé paid for the fifth, $447.17 (booking confirmations and receipts, 10/5/23 – 11/23/23; card statements).
- A condo, January 2024 to February 2025. Application fees in December 2023, the lease signed December 19, 2023, move-in January 17, 2024, and rent through February 2025: $26,740.39 (lease; card statements, 12/2023 – 2/2025).
- Furnishing the condo. $1,553.43 that I paid (order history, January 2024), plus about $5,000 my mother paid for furniture.
Total I paid: about $29,498, plus about $5,000 from my mother and $447.17 from my then-fiancé. The line-by-line figures are on the costs and time page.
5. What he did do
For fairness: at the October 4, 2023 hearing he sustained an objection to a question that assumed facts not in evidence, and he said my then-fiancé "appears to be a very nice person" (official court audio, about 1:38:50 and 1:40:44). He issued the written order within eight days. In 2024 he issued show-cause orders on my contempt motions against my ex-husband within six days of each filing (#454, 5/22/24; #461, 6/4/24), and he let my lawyer attend the March 4, 2024 conference by video, granting her request the day after she filed it (#357, 3/1/24). At that conference he said he was reluctant to let her withdraw and that he would postpone the trial if she did (official court audio, 3/4/24, about 0:00:55 and 0:05:26).
6. My grievance
I filed a grievance against Judge Giulitto. I was told in January 2026 that my grievance would not lead to discipline, so I resubmitted it in a new form. I have had no response to the resubmission.
A separate page about Judge Susan Steinhauer, who handled my case in 2022, will follow.
What I believe was violated
| Rule | What I believe the record shows | When | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jud.Cond.R. 2.2 (impartiality and fairness) | A restriction on my parenting time with no finding of harm, after calling my then-fiancé "a very nice person"; a written order broader than the ruling from the bench; one-line rulings on entries written by the other side; interrupting my lawyer to argue my ex-husband's side; denying me my house-sale money for a lawyer, then paying the guardian from it. | 10/4/23 – 11/13/24 | Official court audio (10/4/23, 3/4/24); #303, #350, #362, #435, #520 |
| Jud.Cond.R. 2.3(A) (bias or prejudice) | "Times are changing… the modern way of living," said just before ruling. | 10/4/23 | Official court audio |
| Jud.Cond.R. 2.3(B) (bias based on marital status) | Keeping my sons from my then-fiancé "until the divorce is over" and asking "Couldn't we wait… until the divorce is over?" | 10/4/23 | Official court audio |
| Jud.Cond.R. 2.5(A) (competence, diligence, promptness) | Ruling before reading the reports; choosing the broadest order when his guardian said less restrictive ones were available; asking me to accept a guardian's report he had not read; guardian-fee orders with errors and no reasons; no end date in the written order; motions left unruled when he left. | 10/4/23 – 1/22/25 | Official court audio (10/4/23, 3/4/24); #303, #337, #435; docket |
| Jud.Cond.R. 2.6(A) (right to be heard) | No closing arguments; leave to amend granted before my response time ran; a ruling before my reply time ran; orders issued right after my lawyer withdrew; subpoenas quashed without a hearing. | 9/14/23 – 11/13/24 | Official court audio; #297, #350, #362, #520 |
| Jud.Cond.R. 2.6(B) (no coercing settlement) | Tying the chance to "reintroduce" my sons to my then-fiancé to settling the case; asking me, without a lawyer, whether a custody proposal based on the guardian's report was "acceptable to you." | 10/4/23 – 3/4/24 | Official court audio (10/4/23, 3/4/24) |
| R.C. 3109.051 (parenting time) | No discussion of the parenting-time factors in the ruling or the written order. | 10/4/23 – 10/12/23 | Official court audio; #303 |
The rules and laws, in their own words
- Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct (Supreme Court of Ohio): Rules 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6
- R.C. 3109.051 (parenting time)
- Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure: Civ.R. 6(C)
- Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Children's names, birthdates, schools and addresses are redacted from every exhibit. Exhibits are excerpts. Full copies are kept for counsel and the appropriate authorities.