Where Is Cuyahoga County Judge Reali During Court Hours? Records Raise Questions About Who Is Handling Her Docket
CLEVELAND, Ohio — There is an expectation inside every courtroom that does not require much explanation. That people are expected to tell the truth. Witnesses swear to it, litigants sign affidavits under oath, attorneys can face serious consequences for knowingly misleading the court, and judges routinely determine whether someone’s explanation is credible by comparing their words against documents, recordings and testimony.
That standard cannot reasonably operate in only one direction.
When a judge tells a courtroom why its trial cannot proceed, the people standing in front of that judge should be entitled to expect that explanation to match the record. When an elected judge says another trial is consuming her time, the public should be able to determine who was actually conducting that proceeding. When questions begin accumulating about how often that judge is physically present in the courthouse, how much substantive work is being performed by magistrates and where the judge is spending portions of the normal workday, those questions concern the performance of a public office with extraordinary power over the people appearing before it.
That is where Cleveland 13’s investigation of Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Judge Colleen Ann Reali has now arrived.
The latest questions begin with Dengler v. Dengler, Case No. DR-17-367298, an exceptionally long-running divorce case that had already consumed nearly nine years by the time it reached Reali’s docket in late 2025. Its importance to this investigation comes not merely from the extraordinary amount of litigation contained within the case, but from the fact that Reali used Dengler to explain why another family’s scheduled trial could not begin.
On January 12, 2026, parties, attorneys and witnesses were assembled for trial in Greminger v. Greminger, DR-25-403805, a separate Domestic Relations case involving Cleveland 13 News President Matt Greminger. Reali appeared before them and explained that the older Dengler matter had priority. In describing why she could not begin the Greminger trial, she referred to Dengler as “this case that I’m in trial on now.”
The official Dengler record identifies someone else as the judicial officer conducting those proceedings.
Magistrate Jason P. Parker’s decision says he heard the January matter. The transcripts identify Parker. Most importantly, Reali herself later signed a May 28 judgment entry stating that the matter “was heard by Magistrate Jason P. Parker” on January 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14.
[EVIDENCE LINK: January 12 courtroom: recording 1 | recording 2]
[EVIDENCE LINK: January Dengler transcript collection]
[EVIDENCE LINK: Reali May 28 Judgment Entry]
That leaves a basic question Reali should be able to answer directly: if Parker was conducting Dengler on January 12, what proceeding was Reali personally conducting when she told another courtroom she was “in trial” on it?
Three days earlier, Reali’s chambers gave a different plan
The contradiction becomes more significant when January 12 is placed beside what Reali’s own chambers said only three days earlier.
Parker had originally been expected to preside over the Greminger trial, but the massive Dengler proceeding was already threatening to interfere with that schedule. Because witnesses were preparing to appear, taking time away from work and, in some instances, traveling substantial distances, Greminger contacted the court on Friday, January 9 specifically to determine whether the Monday trial remained scheduled.
The response from Reali’s chambers was clear: Parker was handling Dengler, Reali would personally handle Greminger, and the parties were still expected Monday morning.
[EVIDENCE LINK: January 9 call with Reali’s chambers]
By Monday, that arrangement had changed, but only after the parties and witnesses had arrived and waited outside the courtroom beyond the scheduled start time. Reali explained that the older matter took precedence, spoke as though she personally was occupied trying it and told those waiting that an existing trial had to be completed before another could begin. She indicated that the delay might last another hour or perhaps several days.
The Greminger trial never happened that day.
Cleveland 13 has previously reported on allegations from court insiders concerning Reali’s handling of that case. That reporting stands separately. What matters here is that the Greminger courtroom produced a contemporaneous recording of Reali explaining what she said was preventing her from hearing another case.
[EVIDENCE LINK: January 12 courtroom: recording 1 | recording 2]
When Cleveland 13 subsequently examined the Dengler record, Parker appeared throughout the January proceedings. His January 22 Magistrate’s Decision identifies the same hearing dates later memorialized by Reali herself in the May 28 entry.
[EVIDENCE: Parker January 22 Magistrate’s Decision]
That May 28 entry is the document readers should keep in mind throughout this story. It is signed by Reali. It identifies Parker as the person who heard the January proceedings. It sits directly beside a recording of Reali telling another courtroom that she was in that trial herself.
The fact that Parker conducted Dengler is not the controversy. Ohio Civil Rule 53 allows magistrates to hear referred matters, and Domestic Relations courts rely heavily on them. The issue is the explanation given to another family about why its own trial could not occur.
If Parker was handling Dengler exactly as Reali’s chambers had said he would three days earlier, why was Reali unavailable to conduct the trial her chambers said she would personally hear?
What happened later that day makes the question more difficult to ignore.
By early afternoon, Reali was at the Board of Elections
Official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections records show that Reali filed her candidacy for another six-year term on January 12, 2026. The Board’s current November 3 general-election candidate list identifies Reali as the sole listed candidate for the Domestic Relations term beginning January 8, 2027.
That does not diminish the importance of scrutiny surrounding the office. An uncontested ballot does not eliminate the public’s interest in knowing how an elected official performs the job, how frequently she is present, who is handling the substantive work assigned to her courtroom and whether explanations given to litigants are consistent with the records the court itself produces.
Cleveland 13 also obtained a Board of Elections visitor log from January 12 bearing the name “Colleen Reali,” with an entry at approximately 1:21 p.m. and a departure roughly twelve minutes later.
[EVIDENCE LINK: January 12 Board of Elections visitor log]
[EVIDENCE LINK: Reali candidacy filing and petitions]
The relevant issue is the chronology. Earlier that day, another courtroom had been told its trial could not proceed because Reali was occupied with Dengler. The official Dengler record shows Parker conducting that proceeding, and Reali’s chambers had already said Parker would handle it while she personally heard Greminger. The second trial nevertheless did not begin, and that afternoon a government visitor record places Reali at the Board of Elections on the day she filed for another term.
Cleveland 13 is seeking to determine what judicial work prevented the Greminger trial from beginning, when that work ended, why the trial did not resume before the Board of Elections visit and whether Reali returned to the courthouse afterward. Those questions have taken on greater significance because January 12 no longer appears to stand alone.
The investigation is increasingly about time away from the courthouse
Over the course of this investigation, Cleveland 13 has reviewed court records and scheduling information, made calls, interviewed current and former court personnel and pursued information concerning Reali’s whereabouts during normal court hours. The resulting picture has caused the newsroom to examine not only how frequently Reali personally conducts substantive proceedings, but how much of the work attached to her docket is instead being performed by magistrates while she is elsewhere.
Over the course of the investigation, Cleveland 13 has developed information indicating that Reali may have attended personal appointments during portions of ordinary weekday court hours. The newsroom has made calls, reviewed available records and spoken with people connected to those appointments, while continuing to seek documentation capable of establishing the dates, times, frequency and duration of any resulting absences before drawing conclusions about their impact on court operations.
The nature of a personal appointment is not itself the public-interest issue. The relevant question is whether an elected judge is spending meaningful portions of the court day away from the courthouse while substantive matters assigned to her docket are being handled by magistrates, litigants await decisions or scheduled proceedings are delayed.
Ohio’s Code of Judicial Conduct speaks directly to the responsibility involved. Rule 2.5 requires judges to perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently. Its commentary states that prompt disposition of court business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, be punctual in attending court, determine matters expeditiously and take reasonable measures to avoid unnecessary costs and delay.
That is not an abstract ethical concept. It gives the public a very straightforward question to ask: how much time is the elected judge actually devoting to the work of the office?
Westlake has surfaced repeatedly
Westlake has also repeatedly appeared during Cleveland 13’s investigation. When Cleveland 13 published notice on September 14 of its investigation concerning allegations involving Reali and the Domestic Relations Court, the newsroom preserved two lengthy mobile reading sessions that appeared shortly after publication and were associated by Cleveland 13’s internal analytics with Westlake. One ran approximately 20 minutes and another more than 22 minutes. Subsequent analysis allowed those sessions to be correlated with specific network addresses, device profiles and later browsing activity.
Cleveland 13’s review accounts for the fact that an IP address, a device profile and an approximate city do not, standing alone, identify the person holding the device. Internet traffic can be routed in ways that distort location, households can share connections and mobile devices can move among networks.
The newsroom therefore did not base its assessment on geolocation alone.
After reviewing the traffic history internally and obtaining additional third-party technical assessment, Cleveland 13 believes the available evidence raises a reasonable possibility that one or more of the recurring sessions may be tied to Reali or to a device associated with her. That possibility has not been confirmed. The newsroom is awaiting additional technical analysis and responses to pending public-records requests that may strengthen, narrow or eliminate that potential connection. The assessment is based on the combined timing, approximate location, device characteristics, repeat behavior, navigation patterns and other independently developed information; not on the proposition that an IP address is a name.
What makes the activity notable, regardless of who ultimately used the devices, is the behavior. The September 14 traffic repeatedly returned to Cleveland 13’s family-court investigation, and one of the corresponding network histories later included a Google-origin visit to Matt Greminger’s Cleveland 13 leadership page followed by navigation into the newsroom’s Meet the Team section. Other traffic identified during the larger review shows the same broader pattern of movement from court reporting into pages concerning the reporters, leadership and organization producing it.
Those patterns are consistent with deliberate research into both the reporting and the people producing it. Cleveland 13 is continuing to investigate whether any of that activity can be independently associated with Reali, another court official or someone with another connection to the matters being reported. At this stage, Cleveland 13 is not identifying any individual as the user of those devices or network connections.
The relevance to this story is narrower. If one or more of the September 14 sessions ultimately can be tied to a device associated with Reali, and if those sessions occurred from Westlake during normal court hours, that would raise a separate question: what judicial duties were being performed in Cleveland at the same time?
Cleveland 13 is separately examining information indicating that Reali may spend portions of some weekdays in Westlake during ordinary court hours, including for possible personal or family responsibilities. That information remains under review. The newsroom is seeking records capable of establishing specific dates, times, courthouse departure and return times, and whether scheduled judicial work was affected.
Personal or family responsibilities are not themselves a public controversy. Frequency, duration and consequence are what matter. If an elected judge is repeatedly away from the courthouse during portions of the court day while magistrates absorb substantive courtroom responsibilities, litigants await decisions or scheduled matters are delayed, the public has a legitimate interest in understanding how the work of the elected office is being performed during those periods.
“The May 28 entry is signed by Reali herself. It says Dengler ‘was heard by Magistrate Jason P. Parker’ on January 12 — the same day another courtroom heard Reali describe herself as ‘in trial’ on that case.”
That is the central documentary conflict. The traffic information does not replace it. It adds context to the larger question the court record already raised.
Dengler shows why the workload question matters
The January Dengler proceedings also demonstrate how workload in one case can affect others.
Parker was handling a sprawling multi-day proceeding while carrying responsibilities elsewhere. Guardian ad Litem Eric Laubacher was simultaneously involved in both Dengler and Greminger. His Greminger report had originally been due January 5, but he sought additional time because of his work in the Dengler trial and ultimately served the report on the morning the Greminger trial was supposed to begin.
[EVIDENCE LINK: Laubacher extension request]
When an enormous case consumes a magistrate’s time, the effects can spread quickly. Other hearings collide with it, reports move, witnesses return another day, attorneys bill additional hours and families continue living under temporary arrangements while they wait for the court to resolve issues affecting their lives.
The elected judge assigned to administer that docket remains accountable for how the system functions.
That is why Cleveland 13 is not asking whether magistrates are legally permitted to conduct hearings. They plainly are. The investigation is asking how much substantive judicial work assigned to Reali is actually being performed by magistrates, how frequently Reali herself is present while that work is occurring and whether absences during court hours are contributing to delays or shifting additional burdens onto the people beneath her.
Reali did later perform judicial work in Dengler. Her May 28 ruling on objections to Parker’s decision modified a substantial attorney-fee award and addressed numerous contested issues. That subsequent review is part of the case record and belongs in any complete account of the case.
It does not resolve what happened on January 12.
Reali’s own May 28 entry remains the document confirming that Parker, not Reali, heard the proceedings she had invoked to explain why another courtroom could not begin its trial.
Judge Reali, these are the questions
Cleveland 13 has reviewed transcripts, courtroom recordings, judicial entries, scheduling information, election records and website traffic. The newsroom has interviewed more than a dozen people who work or have worked inside or closely with the Domestic Relations Court, including current and former judicial officers and court personnel, pursued information concerning personal appointments during the court day and continued seeking records as the investigation has developed.
Taken together, the questions are no longer about one scheduling conflict.
Judge Reali: Why did your chambers say on January 9 that Parker was handling Dengler and that you would personally conduct the Greminger trial, only for you to tell that courtroom three days later that you were “in trial” on Dengler yourself? What specific judicial duties prevented that trial from beginning, when did those duties end, why did the case not resume before you appeared at the Board of Elections that afternoon, and did you return to the courthouse afterward?
How frequently are you physically present at the courthouse during ordinary working hours, and how many contested hearings and trials assigned to your docket during 2025 and 2026 did you personally conduct rather than refer to magistrates? How much court-day time has been spent at personal appointments or other nonjudicial matters, and how frequently are you away from the courthouse while matters assigned to you remain pending?
Do you routinely leave the courthouse during the workday for personal or family responsibilities, including travel to Westlake, and if so, what arrangements ensure that litigants, attorneys and witnesses are not waiting for judicial action while you are away?
Were any of the September 14 Cleveland 13 visits identified during the newsroom’s analysis yours, or made from a device associated with you? Cleveland 13 has not reached a final attribution and is awaiting additional technical analysis and public records that may help confirm or rule out that possibility. If any of those visits were yours, were you in Westlake when they occurred, and what judicial responsibilities were scheduled or awaiting action at that time?
Those questions can be answered.
Readers should be able to examine the record themselves
Cleveland 13 has not waited until publication to ask some of them. The newsroom has contacted the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court seeking records and explanations as this investigation has developed. On September 14, Cleveland 13 specifically submitted questions concerning Judge Reali and asked that they be provided directly to her for an opportunity to respond. As of publication, Cleveland 13 has received no response from Reali to those questions.
That opportunity remains open.
Judge Reali, if you are reading this, you are welcome to answer these questions directly. You do not need to communicate through a court administrator, spokesperson or intermediary. You may email the Cleveland 13 newsroom and provide whatever records, explanations or context you believe the public should have, and your response will be reviewed and reported fairly.
Whether Reali chooses to respond is up to her. Cleveland 13 will continue examining the underlying records, seeking additional documentation and providing Reali an opportunity to address material findings as the investigation develops. Where the underlying material can legally and ethically be made public, Cleveland 13 intends to allow readers to examine the evidence rather than simply accept the newsroom’s characterization of it.
The reason Dengler remains the spine of this investigation is that its central contradiction does not depend upon a confidential courthouse source or an unhappy litigant asking the public to believe an allegation. The court created the record itself. Parker conducted the proceeding. Reali told another courtroom she was in that trial. Her chambers had previously said Parker was the one handling it, and another scheduled trial never began before Reali appeared at the Board of Elections later that afternoon.
Everything else Cleveland 13 is examining, including courthouse presence, magistrate workload, Westlake activity, personal appointments and the traffic patterns surrounding the newsroom’s reporting, all matters because it may help determine whether January 12 was an isolated scheduling problem or part of something broader about how this elected office is being administered.
Courts routinely resolve disputes by comparing what people say with documents, recordings, testimony and the official record. When those sources conflict, the discrepancy matters and ordinarily requires an explanation.
The same principle of accountability applies when the questions concern the administration of the court itself. Judges exercise extraordinary public authority, and documented inconsistencies concerning how that authority is exercised should be capable of being examined and answered.
A robe carries enormous authority. It should not make reasonable, evidence-based questions about the exercise of that authority disappear.
Cleveland 13 continues reviewing records and firsthand accounts concerning the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court. Anyone with direct knowledge, court records, recordings, scheduling information or other independently verifiable evidence can contact the newsroom at tips@cleveland13news.com.
Comments