In re: T.R. – Part 4

           On August 27, 1990, I arrived at home about 9:30 in the evening from a Columbus Clippers baseball game. A Franklin County Sheriff's cruiser was parked in front of our house.

            Earlier that day, after several days of trial, I had written and distributed my decision in the custody case of Tessa Reams. The trial had gone as most custody cases proceeded. The focus was on which of the claimants for the role of custodian was most likely to provide for the best interests of the child. Both Richard Reams and Beverly Seymour had testified, as did several other relatives and friends. The Guardian ad Litem made his recommendation.

            In my decision, I noted that Ms. Seymour had acted in a manner not conducive to the child's best interest by attempting to exploit the situation and to gain publicity for her position, which had led to the need for me to close the courtroom proceedings to the public and issue a gag order. Also highly relevant was my determination that Mr. Reams was far more likely to support a relationship between Tessa and Beverly, while Beverly had made it clear that her animus toward Richard would negatively impact his relationship with the child.

            At the end, I decided to grant custody of Tessa to Richard, her father figure, and to permit Beverly to have regular visitation with the child.

            I asked the deputy what he was doing there. What he told me nearly stopped my heart: Beverly Seymour had shot and killed Richard Reams and she was being sought by the police. Until she was apprehended, the Sheriff had determined to keep an eye on me and my family. Shortly thereafter, we learned that Beverly was in custody.

            News reports indicated that, after receiving a copy of my decision from his lawyer, Richard had traveled to Beverly's home in Ashville, Ohio, to obtain possession of Tessa. After some altercation, Beverly produced a pistol and shot and killed Richard. Eventually, Beverly was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

            Following another brief hearing, I granted custody of Tessa to Mr. Reams' mother, who raised her away from Central Ohio. Today, Tessa Reams is 30-years-old.

* * * * *

 The Columbus Dispatch and its publisher did not forgive my audacity in defending against the lawsuit over the closure and gag orders. I quickly learned that a vendetta was in the offing when an editorial in the Dispatch blamed me for the murder of Richard Reams. The editorial asserted that, had Beverly been permitted to air her case in public, she would not have been so angry and probably would not have confronted and murdered Mr. Reams.

That was just the beginning. Over the next four years prior to my campaign for re-election, the newspaper hammered me over every decision I made. In an article in American Journalism Review, published in June, 2000, author John Widklein recounted the history of the management of the Dispatch by the Wolfe family, and the attitude of the Dispatch toward anyone who crossed them. He wrote:

The family could also be tough on public figures who crossed them. Early in the '90s, Judge Ronald L. Solove angered the Wolfes by barring reporters from his juvenile court. The paper appealed the decision, but lost. To gloat, Solove put up a computer-generated banner in his office that read, "Who's afraid of the big bad Wolfe?"--in this case, meaning John F. That was enough. With editorials and a cascade of nit-picking stories, the paper helped bring about Solove's defeat in the next election.

            The final blow to my re-election chances was my handling of a case against a child of 16 who, with her mother, had been involved in the beating death of a woman as a result of a drug deal gone bad. The case came before me, just a few weeks before the election scheduled for November 1994, to determine if the child should be tried as an adult. Having listened to testimony which convinced me that the child essentially had been compelled to participate by her mother, that she had no previous juvenile record, and that she stood a good chance of being rehabilitated in the juvenile court system, I decided that she would remain under the jurisdiction of the Franklin County Juvenile Court.

            After the hearing, I called the child's defense counsel aside and told him that the case would surely cost me the election, and that I expected him to support my family in the future. We both had a hardy laugh. Of course, the Dispatch excoriated me over the outcome of the case. A few weeks later, the election was lost, my career as a judge was over, and, on January 5, 1995, I entered into the private practice of Family Law.

            Although In re: T.R. changed my life, it certainly did so for the better. The last 20 years of private practice have been the best of my professional career, providing me with the opportunity to work with wonderful people and to enjoy the kind of professional freedom denied to judges. And, of course, the economic benefits have been rewarding as well. Every year when I review and sign my tax returns, I whisper a quiet "thank you" to the Wolfe family and the career guidance they provided.

            And, I did the right thing.

In re: T.R. – Part 3

            The Ohio Supreme Court's opinion in In re: T.R. was a landmark decision defining the intersection of the rights of free speech and of freedom of the press with the potential of harm to an innocent child.

I had issued two orders that were under review by the Supreme Court. The first was a "gag order" restricting the parties involved in the litigation from "disseminating any information about this pending cause or about the minor child Tessa Reams to any and all persons * * * including, but not limited to, representatives of both the broadcast and print media; and * * * from appearing on any and all radio and television broadcasts regarding these causes or the minor child herein; and * * * from otherwise providing any information regarding these causes or said child either directly or indirectly in any fashion whatsoever.”

The second order provided that “the trial and all other proceedings in this matter shall be closed to all news media and members of the public, except parties, witnesses * * *, counsel, and necessary court personnel. * * *” I also restricted access to the case file to the same individuals. This came to be described as the "closure order."

The Supreme Court noted that I had conducted hearings before issuing each order to determine whether the potential harm to the child outweighed the public's right to open judicial proceedings and free speech. Based on the testimony I had heard, I believe that the danger that press access presented to Tessa was significant and that she deserved to be protected by the court. The Supreme Court agreed.

In Ohio, the "law" of any Supreme Court decision is presented in a paragraph, or several paragraphs, called the "Syllabus" of the case. The bulk of the opinion of the Court is an explanation of the facts and the legal reasoning behind the rule stated in the Syllabus. The most significant part of the Syllabus in In re: T.R. was the third paragraph:

3. Proceedings in juvenile court to determine if a child is abused, neglected, or dependent, or to determine custody of a minor child, are neither presumptively open nor presumptively closed to the public. The juvenile court may restrict public access to these proceedings pursuant to Juv.R. 27 and R.C. 2151.35 if the court finds, after hearing evidence and argument on the issue, (1) that there exists a reasonable and substantial basis for believing that public access could harm the child or endanger the fairness of the adjudication, and (2) the potential for harm outweighs the benefits of public access.

            The Court went on to state that, given the facts presented at the hearings I had conducted, it was clearly established that the potential harm to Tessa justified the gag and closure orders. We had beaten the powerful Columbus Dispatch and the publisher John W. Wolfe in the Supreme Court of Ohio.

            When we got the word that we had won, some members of the Domestic Court staff produced a banner that read "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolfe" and hung it behind my desk. I later learned that a Dispatch reporter had told John Wolfe personally about this and that Mr. Wolfe was livid that I would show such disrespect to one of the most powerful men in Ohio. Although I firmly believed that we had done the right thing for Tessa Reams and for children in Ohio in general, I was about to pay a personal price for winning the case.

            Finally, after over five years of delay caused by the various appeals, we proceeded to try the case for custody of Tessa.

In re: T.R. – Part 2

          The press attention focused on the custody case involving Richard Reams, Beverly Seymour, and the child Tessa Reams was overwhelming. Finally, Tessa's Guardian ad Litem filed a motion seeking to enjoin the parties from communicating with the press. I conducted a hearing on this motion, which was attended by a television crew from Fox News. At one point, the Guardian and a reporter from Fox nearly came to blows in the courtroom. I pounded my seldom used gavel so hard I feared it would break.

            The Fox reporter made a statement opposing the motion, while a Dispatch reporter attended the hearing but had nothing to say. Beverly Seymour testified that, "I am doing everything I can as her mother to strengthen my position." In her opinion, increased public attention would bolster her case and was in Tessa's best interest. Norma Stotski, Tessa's biological mother, testified that she was asked to appear on the Geraldo program with Beverly.

            A licensed psychologist testified at the request of the Guardian that a child who is the subject of a custody dispute faces a "high probability" of emotional damage, and that substantial publicity about the case would increase the probability of harm. Therefore, the publicity sought by Beverly was not in the child's best interest.

            A few hours after the hearing, I entered an order enjoining the adult parties, their counsel, and agents from “disseminating any information about this pending cause or about the minor child Tessa Reams to any and all persons * * * including, but not limited to, representatives of both the broadcast and print media; and * * * from appearing on any and all radio and television broadcasts regarding these causes or the minor child herein; and * * * from otherwise providing any information regarding these causes or said child either directly or indirectly in any fashion whatsoever.”

            Shortly thereafter, the Guardian filed a motion seeking to close further proceedings in the case by excluding the public and press from future hearings. Again, I conducted a hearing to consider this motion. A social worker assigned to the case testified as an expert witness that press coverage of the trial would potentially be harmful to Tessa, since it would expose her to negative allegations about the people she considered her parents. Counsel argued that the presence of the press and public could inhibit the presentation of significant evidence due to the potential of harm to the child.

            The managing editor of the Columbus Dispatch testified to the benefits of permitting the press to observe and report on the proceedings. He pointed to the American tradition of open courtrooms and minimized the impact of any harm to the child in comparison to the public's "right to know."

            I returned to my chambers and wrote an opinion, finding that  “the interests in protecting Tessa Reams and in a full judicial exploration of all relevant evidence bearing on her best interest in the custody dispute are overriding and the presumption in favor of openness is overcome in this case. * * *” I ordered that “the trial and all other proceedings in this matter shall be closed to all news media and members of the public, except parties, witnesses * * *, counsel, and necessary court personnel. * * *” I also closed access to the case file to all but the participants in the case.

            The Columbus Dispatch immediately appealed the gag order and the closure order to the Court of Appeals. The Dispatch sued me individually, requesting that the Court of Appeals prohibit me from enforcing my orders. The Court of Appeals held that my orders were unconstitutional because a risk of substantial harm to Tessa had not been demonstrated and therefore the Dispatch's access to the proceedings was unduly limited. I was prohibited from enforcing the orders.

            The Guardian ad Litem and I both filed appeals from the Court of Appeals decision in the Supreme Court of Ohio, which agreed to hear the case. The Dispatch was represented by Jones, Reavis & Pogue, a high-powered, large law firm. I was represented by an assistant Franklin County Prosecutor whose office represents public officials in lawsuits related to their official duties. The Franklin County Public Defender's office and the Guardian ad Litem represented Tessa Reams. Amicus (Friend of the Court) briefs were filed by the Ohio Newspaper Association, Beverly Reams, pro se, The Ohio Association of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Federation for Community Planning.

            All proceedings were held in abeyance awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court. On June 13, 1990, that decision was announced.