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.