Judge Susan K. Steinhauer

1. She said she was not hearing temporary orders, then granted temporary custody

At the end of the day she told everyone she was not hearing temporary orders. Nineteen days later her order made my ex-husband my sons' temporary custodian.

• She said: "I'm not dealing with temporary -- the temporary orders hearing should have been reset by Magistrate Hill … I did not take the temporary orders hearing … I only took the emergency motion and full DV-CPO hearing" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 393:20–394:8).
• Her order: "Husband shall be the temporary legal custodian and residential parent" (order of 6/8/22, p. 27).

2. A one-hour hearing became an all-day hearing before a different judicial officer

The notice said one hour, a half hour for each side, before Magistrate Hill. I walked into an all-day hearing before a judge.

• The notice: "The hearing shall last for one hour, with a half hour allocated to each party" (notice of 5/11/22).
• She explained: "Magistrate Hill wanted me to take everything all at once because, by then, we had found out about -- I mean, I think Magistrate Hill knew about your motions. I didn't know about them yet" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 253:11–254:1).
• In fairness: she said the case came to her "by agreement of the attorneys and Magistrate Hill" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, at about 253:11).

3. The handover was ordered while my stay motion sat unruled, and the order reached the docket after its own deadline

My lawyer asked the court to stay the order the same day. There was never a ruling. The order to hand my sons over was written by my ex-husband's lawyer, and it reached the docket the morning after the deadline it set.

• Motion to stay or modify, filed June 9, 2022 (#38): I found no ruling on it.
• The order: "Upon written motion, and for good cause show[n], Plaintiff's Motion is hereby granted," delivery "no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 13, 2022," "Submitted by: /s/ Sarah E. Heid," time-stamped 06/14/2022 09:31:32 AM (#62).
• Same day, opposite results. On June 9, 2022, both sides filed. My lawyer asked her to stay her order (#38). My ex-husband's lawyers asked her to enforce it (#37). She granted theirs five days later, on June 14 (#62). She never ruled on mine before she left my case in August 2022 (docket, DR-2022-03-0667, #38 through #101).

4. Her full order found my household in danger but protected only me

Her order found that my household was in danger. It protected only me, and it said handing my sons to him was not a violation.

• The order's form finding: "Petitioner and Petitioner's family or household members are in danger and have been a victim of domestic violence" (full protection order, 6/9/22, p. 3; this is pre-printed form language).
• The lines for protected family or household members were left blank. Paragraph 17: "Return of the children from Petitioner to Respondent as ordered in DR 2022-03-0667 shall NOT violate this order. This is a one time event" (same order, ¶17).

5. Her findings got the plea wrong, and she would not watch the body camera

He told her he pled guilty, and her June 8 order says guilty. Her protection order, signed one day later, says no contest. She wouldn't watch the body camera because, she said, he had admitted everything in the police report.

• His testimony: "I -- I pled guilty, but pled down to a disorderly conduct charge" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 128:11–136:19).
• On cross-examination he was asked whether he entered "a plea of guilty." He answered: "I -- I -- I guess, yeah." He agreed that by entering a guilty plea he admitted the facts in the complaint (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 220:23–221:7).
• Her own June 8 order says it too: "Husband pled guilty to reduced charges of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor of the first degree," and that Judge Hoover lifted the order "upon Husband pleading guilty to disorderly conduct" (order of 6/8/22, pp. 23–24).
• Yet the full protection order she signed the next morning finds: "Respondent pled no contest to disorderly conduct" (full protection order, journalized 6/9/22, p. 2). A guilty plea is an admission. A no-contest plea is not. Her findings say he kicked a glass out of my hand. They do not mention the responding officer's testimony.
• She said: "he's admitted to all the allegations that are in the police report" and "I am not going to admit the body cam" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 254:5–11 and 260:3–4).

6. She went to work for the winning lawyers' firm

Months after she gave my sons to my ex-husband, she became a partner at the firm of the lawyers who wrote the order that stripped my sons from me. Lisa Dean wrote that order. The firm lists her as a partner, and the Akron Legal News reported that she started there on May 1, 2023 (firm profile; Akron Legal News).

• Her letter: "On May 1, 2023, I began my employment at Roderick Linton Belfance LLP in Akron, Ohio. Attorneys from this firm represent the Plaintiff in the above-named case" (letter of 5/30/23, filed 6/6/23, #220).
• The timeline. She lost the November 8, 2022 election, and her term ended January 5, 2023 (Akron Legal News, 7/7/23). In a sworn affidavit, she said she "had lunch with Kay Belfance January 17, 2023," twelve days after leaving the bench, "but was pursuing other opportunities at that time," and that she began negotiating with the firm on or about April 1, 2023. She became a partner there on May 1, 2023 (Steinhauer affidavit ¶¶ 5–6, filed 7/20/23; #220).
• In fairness: the letter describes a screen from my case, and another judge denied my motion to disqualify the firm on July 20, 2023. Her affidavit says she did not negotiate with the firm while she was assigned to my case, and I have no evidence that she did.

7. She recused only after her rulings, for a conflict that existed before she took my case

She stepped off my case ten weeks after taking my sons, for a "personal conflict" that the orders in my file never describe.

• The transfer was "due to a personal conflict" (#100, 8/22/22).
• Her letter: "I voluntarily recused myself from the case in August of 2022 after concern was raised regarding a potential personal conflict in the case" (letter of 5/30/23, #220).
• My 2023 motion: the conflict "existed prior to Judge Steinhauer's acceptance of this case" (motion to disqualify, 7/7/23, p. 3).
• Her accounts don't match. The court's entry calls it "a personal conflict" (#100, 8/22/22). But my ex-husband's lawyer wrote that, at a Zoom conference with counsel on August 11, 2022, "Judge Steinhauer specifically stated that there was in fact no conflict, but that she would recuse herself to 'avoid the appearance of impropriety'" (Dean letter of 5/22/23, n. 1, filed with the opposition of 7/20/23). According to that letter, the concern was a past connection between a place her children attended and a member of my ex-husband's family.
• An "emergency hearing" with no record. Her 2023 letter says: "After holding an emergency hearing to discuss the potential conflict, I requested that the case be assigned to a visiting judge" (letter of 5/30/23, #220). The docket has no entry for August 11, 2022: no notice, no hearing, no transcript. The next entries after August 9 are dated August 18 (docket, #82 through #99).

8. Her own family tie to the Goddard School

She said on the record: "both of my children attended The Goddard School in Hudson" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 73:5–10) and "Obviously, I know The Goddard. My children attended" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 78:20–25). Goddard staff testified in my case. In fairness: it was a different branch (Macedonia), and she disclosed it openly.

9. A self-contradicting credibility finding

On the same page she found my ex-husband's testimony on one point "unbelievable" and found him "generally credible and not impeached" (order of 6/8/22, p. 24).

10. "The only testimony" about surveillance left out mine

Her order says "the only testimony regarding alleged surveillance was that the police officer … found no surveillance devices" (order of 6/8/22, p. 27). I had testified that he contacted my car company to find the location of my car, and that "I believe he was trying to find me and my children" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 307:10–309:24).

11. A contempt summons that did not say which order

The show-cause order, submitted by my ex-husband's lawyer, ordered me to appear in three days "for failure to comply with the prior Order(s) of this Court," and warned that "the Court may issue a capias for her arrest" (#78, 7/19/22). It did not say which order or what I failed to do. Magistrate Hill continued it two days later (#80).

• Orders his lawyers wrote. The handover order says "Submitted by: /s/ Sarah E. Heid" (#62, 6/14/22). The show-cause order says "Submitted by: /s/ Lisa Carey Dean," above the names of Lisa Carey Dean and Sarah E. Heid, "Attorneys for Plaintiff" (#78, 7/19/22).
• Two contempt motions, treated differently. My ex-husband's lawyers filed a contempt motion against me on May 13, 2022 (#26). My lawyer filed a contempt motion on May 23, 2022 (#34). On July 19 she signed a show-cause order against me "Upon Motion of Plaintiff" (#78). I found no show-cause order or ruling on my motion before she left my case on August 22, 2022 (docket, DR-2022-03-0667).

12. A custody hearing run against the clock

"Just talk fast -- because I have day three of a trial coming back here" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 4:12–16). "We have seven minutes until we get kicked out of the building" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 376:24–377:2). "We're going to do this super fast so we can get out of here before the deputies kick us out" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 383:20–23). "I'm not a fan of closing briefs" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 392:18–393:2).

13. One order relied on another that did not exist yet

The June 8 order says the protection order "defers to this Order and case for issues dealing with custody and parenting time" (order of 6/8/22). The full protection order was not journalized until 7:45 AM on June 9. A court speaks through its journal entries.

14. She heard a challenge to another officer's order and said she usurped no one

My lawyers objected the day before that the motion was "an improper collateral attack upon this Court's Order of May 9, 2022" (#31). She said: "I've not usurped anyone from any authority. I'm hearing everything" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 325:1–8).

15. "No testimony" about why I asked Judge Hoover to lift the order. There was.

Her order says "there was no testimony concerning her secondary request to remove the TPO, or any pressure applied in that situation" (order of 6/8/22, p. 24). I testified about exactly that. I said I wrote the note "after they told me it's very rare that they ever rescind it, and then I would have reasonable explanation that I at least tried to reverse it and he wouldn't try to hurt my children and I." Asked whether my husband asked me to do it, I answered: "He told me to fix it." (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 336:1–12)

16. "Multiple witnesses testified" my sons were "well adjusted." None did.

Her order says "Multiple witnesses testified that the children are well adjusted to their home, schools, and community" (order of 6/8/22, p. 25). I searched the whole transcript. The word "adjusted" doesn't appear in it. Those are the words of the custody statute, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1)(d), not of anyone who took the stand.

17. "No other domestic violence issues" is not what he said

Her order says my ex-husband "has had no other domestic violence issues either before or after 2/15/22" (order of 6/8/22, p. 11). What he actually testified was narrower: police had never come to our house for it before, and nothing had happened since (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 144:7–14). That isn't the same thing, and it isn't what I testified.

18. The wrong date for the protection order she faulted me over

Her order criticizes what I told "the Magistrate" when I "did obtain an ex parte order on May 9, 2022" (order of 6/8/22, p. 26). Magistrate Collins issued that order on May 6. May 9 is the day my ex-husband was served. Her own full protection order, entered the next morning, has the date right: "Ex Parte Order issued on 05/06/2022" (full protection order, journalized 6/9/22, p. 2).

19. She took judicial notice of an unrelated civil case to judge my credibility

Over my lawyer's "strenuous objection," she took judicial notice of an unrelated civil case pending in another division of the courthouse, "so I can ascertain the credibility of the parties that are testifying" (hearing transcript, 5/20/22, 145:11–150:6). Judicial notice is meant for facts "not subject to reasonable dispute" (Evid.R. 201(B)), not for weighing who to believe.