Cleveland Family Court Whistleblowers Put More Judges Under Fire Ahead of Evidence Release
CLEVELAND, Ohio — Cleveland 13 News did not begin this investigation expecting it to become an examination of the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court itself.
Our investigative journalists were working on a story involving former Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze, whose conduct had already brought extraordinary scrutiny to a court entrusted with some of the most personal and life-altering decisions government can make about families.
Then the evidence started pointing somewhere else. One record led to another. Cases that initially appeared unrelated began raising remarkably similar questions. Litigants shared recordings and filings. Public records created timelines that did not always fit comfortably with explanations people remembered being given in court. Eventually, multiple high-ranking sources from inside the institution itself, including a sitting judge, began helping us understand what the public record alone could not fully explain.
Some of what we uncovered hit much closer to home than we ever imagined it would. Cleveland 13 founder and journalist Matthew Greminger is himself a litigant in a Domestic Relations Court case that ultimately became part of the investigation. Because of that obvious conflict, Cleveland 13 did not treat Greminger's allegations as evidence. His case was examined through independently obtained court records, recordings, public records and information provided by sources with direct knowledge of events inside the court. That relationship will be fully disclosed throughout our reporting, and Greminger’s case will be addressed separately and transparently in the full report.
By the time the work was finished, the story was no longer about one former judge. It had become an examination of power, accountability and what can happen inside a family court when the people entrusted with extraordinary discretion operate under remarkably little scrutiny themselves.
Cleveland 13 has now completed an extensive investigation into the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court, including conduct involving Judge Colleen Ann Reali and the actions and decisions of several magistrates working within the same system.
Our reporting is supported by court recordings, transcripts, filings, public records, election records, video, electronic information and firsthand accounts from people with direct knowledge of the cases and events we examined.
Among them are high-ranking whistleblowers from inside the very court at the center of this story. They made themselves available throughout our investigation to help us understand how the court actually operates, verify details that could never be understood from a docket alone and, quite literally, help us dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
What they ultimately brought us was more than we expected.
Their identities will remain protected. What they helped us uncover will not.
In just a couple of weeks, Cleveland 13 and members of the community will gather outside the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court for a public rally focused on family court accountability. Parents, litigants, advocates, court employees and others who believe they have experienced or witnessed serious misconduct will have an opportunity to be heard.
That same day, after the rally, Cleveland 13 will air the full investigative exposé.
This Started With Celebrezze. It Became Something Much Bigger.
There is a tendency whenever misconduct involving a public official is exposed to treat that person as the entire problem. Remove the person, close the chapter and move on.
Our reporting made that impossible.
As we examined what had happened around Celebrezze, we began encountering other cases, other officials and other circumstances that raised questions having nothing to do with the scandal that originally brought us there.
Some involved families who say they spent enormous amounts of money waiting for proceedings that did not happen when or how they were told they would. Some raised questions about how much judicial work was actually being performed by the elected official assigned to the case. Others involved allegations that political considerations, public criticism or personal interests had entered places where they had no business being.
One case involved a person losing her freedom under circumstances that disturbed people working inside the court itself.
Another raised questions about what happened after public criticism of the court found its way directly back to the judges being criticized. And one case produced a chronology involving a family court proceeding, internal discussions, political concerns, court recordings and election records that became increasingly difficult to dismiss as coincidence once the pieces were placed next to one another.
What concerned us most was not simply the seriousness of any individual allegation.
It was how often information coming from different places began pointing in the same direction; and in several instances, independently obtained records aligned with important portions of what sources told us had occurred behind closed doors.
The Timing Could Not Be More Important
Ohio lawmakers are considering substantial changes to the laws governing parenting responsibilities and the discretion exercised by family courts.
Senate Bill 174 has already passed the Ohio Senate and is pending before the Ohio House.
There are legitimate arguments for and against the legislation, but parents and advocates organizing in Cuyahoga County believe there is a question lawmakers should answer before expanding judicial discretion any further:
What safeguards exist when judicial discretion itself becomes the problem?
Family court judges wield enormous power. They determine where children live, how families divide time, what restrictions govern parents, how property and finances are handled and, in some circumstances, whether someone loses his or her freedom. That power is necessary, but so is accountability.
The Cuyahoga County Family Court Accountability Project was created around the belief that Ohio should not expand one while ignoring the other.
The people participating in this effort are not asking lawmakers to abolish judicial discretion. They are asking lawmakers and the public to look honestly at what can happen when enormous discretion is exercised inside a system where challenging the person exercising it can be extraordinarily difficult.
When a Family Case Becomes Politically Inconvenient
One of the cases Cleveland 13 examined raises serious questions about whether political concerns found their way into decisions surrounding a family court proceeding.
High-ranking sources from inside the court with firsthand knowledge of the events provided information concerning internal discussions surrounding a litigant whose connection to the media and previous public criticism of the court had become known inside the courthouse.
Their accounts were not the only evidence available. Recordings, court transcripts, public records, election records and the timing of events allowed our journalists to reconstruct what happened, what was being discussed behind the scenes and what the litigant was being told publicly.
That chronology will be presented in full in the upcoming exposé.
It matters for the very simple reason that judicial decisions are supposed to be governed by the law and the facts before the court, not political calendars, election concerns or fear that a litigant might generate uncomfortable publicity.
No parent should ever have to wonder whether the timing of an election mattered more than the timing of a case involving his or her children, and no litigant should ever have to wonder whether criticizing the government changed the way the government treated them afterward.
When Criticism of the Court Makes Its Way Back Inside
Our investigation also examined what happened after a litigant publicly criticized the family court system.
That criticism did not simply disappear into the internet.
According to people with direct knowledge of what occurred, it made its way inside the court and ultimately reached Judge Francine Goldberg, Judge Colleen Ann Reali and people involved with the court's legal operation.
Information provided by sources with direct knowledge indicates there was discussion about whether the person responsible for the criticism, or that person's attorney, should be contacted concerning what had been published and told to remove it.
County legal counsel ultimately became involved, raising questions that extend far beyond a disagreement between a judge and a litigant.
People appearing before judges do not surrender their right to criticize government simply because the government official being criticized also happens to wield enormous power over their family.
That imbalance of power is exactly why courts must be exceptionally careful about how they respond when criticism comes from someone standing before them.
The full account of what occurred, who became involved and the records behind it will be part of Cleveland 13's upcoming report.
What the Public Sees on a Docket Is Not Always the Whole Story
Another major part of our reporting focused on how judicial work was actually being performed.
There is nothing unusual about magistrates handling substantial portions of family court cases. They are an essential part of Ohio's judicial system. The questions we encountered were different.
Who was actually expected to conduct particular proceedings? How often were families and attorneys waiting for a judge who had not arrived? How frequently were matters shifted, delayed or handed to someone else? What happened to the workload when that occurred? And did the public record always give an accurate impression of who was actually doing the work?
People with firsthand knowledge from inside the court helped us understand scheduling systems, remote-access technology, case-management processes and the day-to-day mechanics that are almost invisible to someone reading a docket from outside the building.
That information gave our reporters something we did not have when this investigation began. A way to test what people were telling us against records capable of showing when work was being performed, by whom and, in some circumstances, from where.
For the people paying attorneys by the hour, taking time off work, arranging childcare, bringing witnesses to court and waiting for decisions involving their children, that difference is not academic. It can mean thousands of dollars and months, sometimes years, of their lives.
One Case Left People Inside the Court Asking Whether a Line Had Been Crossed
Among the cases that will be presented in the exposé is one involving a woman jailed following a contempt proceeding.
Courts possess lawful contempt powers, and incarceration itself does not establish misconduct. What drew our attention was everything that happened around it.
People with direct knowledge of the proceeding described serious concerns being raised internally about the procedure being used. They described conversations about what the court could and could not do. They described efforts by people inside the courthouse to address problems involving the woman's incarceration and attempts to obtain her release.
And they described what happened when those concerns reached the judge.
The episode became significant enough that it deeply affected people involved in the operation of the court itself. Cleveland 13 reviewed the underlying record alongside those firsthand accounts.
There are records. There are messages. There are people who were there. In the coming weeks, the public will be able to examine what happened and decide whether the line was crossed for themselves.
This Is Not a Collection of Angry People Who Lost Court Cases
Family court is emotional by its nature, and any serious investigation of it has to account for that.
People lose cases. People become angry at judges. People remember traumatic proceedings differently. An unfavorable ruling does not establish corruption, and disagreement with a judge is not proof of misconduct.
That is precisely why Cleveland 13 did not build this story around complaints. We built it around things that could be checked.
We spent months listening to recordings. Watching footage. We reviewed transcripts and filings. We obtained public records. We reconstructed timelines. We compared accounts from people with firsthand knowledge of the same events. We examined evidence capable of confirming what sources told us; and evidence capable of proving them wrong.
Where the evidence supported an innocent explanation, that mattered. Where it did not, that mattered too; and where a source told us something that sounded extraordinary, our job was not to repeat it louder, it was to find out whether the evidence was there.
Our job is not to tell the public what conclusion it is required to reach. Our job is to show you what happened.
In a Few Short Weeks, These Stories Leave the Courtroom
The Cuyahoga County Family Court Accountability Project will hold a public rally outside the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court in the next couple weeks.
The event is intended to give a voice to people who have often felt they had none inside the system. Parents and litigants who believe they were mistreated will be invited to speak. Court workers who have witnessed conduct they believe deserves public scrutiny are encouraged to participate. Attorneys, advocates and family members who possess firsthand information or documentation will also have an opportunity to come forward.
The rally will focus both on what has happened in Cuyahoga County and on the larger debate over judicial accountability as Ohio considers changes to family court law.
Evidence from Cleveland 13's investigation will be presented publicly. Later that same day, the network will air the complete exposé.
There will be difficult allegations in that report, but Cleveland 13 is not asking the community to accept any of them on faith.
We are asking people to look. Listen to the recordings. Read the records. Follow the dates. Compare what people were told publicly with what the evidence shows was happening behind the scenes.
Hear from people who were actually there. Then decide for yourself.
What began as reporting involving Leslie Ann Celebrezze ultimately revealed questions about the institution she left behind that were far more serious, and far more consequential, than anything we expected to find when we started.
Now that work is complete, and in just a few weeks, evidence that has remained inside court files, private recordings, electronic records and the accounts of people who witnessed what happened will move into public view.
And people who have spent years believing nobody would listen will finally have an opportunity to be heard together.
Cleveland 13 has requested comment from the Domestic Relations Court and the judges whose conduct is examined in this investigation. Any responses received will be included in our continuing reporting and the upcoming full exposé.
Cuyahoga County Family Court Accountability Project
If you are a litigant, parent, court employee, attorney, advocate, family member or community member with firsthand experience involving serious misconduct, retaliation, corruption or systemic failures in the Cuyahoga County family court system, or if you simply want to attend and support greater accountability, sign up below to receive the rally date, time and participation information. If you have additional cases you believe our team should examine prior to the release of the full exposé, our team wants to hear from you. Email us at tips@cleveland13news.com.
The full Cleveland 13 investigative exposé will air later that same day; and at that point, returning to this very story and clicking HERE will give you open access to the evidence we examined, the proof we uncovered and the stories we've learned. The day of the rally, that link goes live and it all goes public.
Comments