Jill Lanzinger

2025 Court News Ohio - Distinguished Judge Brings New Experience to Oral Argument.

In re N.C. (2025). The court reversed the lower court’s decision to give permanent custody of N.C. to the county agency and sent the case back for a new hearing. The court decided this because the parents were never personally asked if they fully understood their rights or agreed to give up custody of their child. N.C. had previously been in the care of relatives because his parents’ home was unsafe. When the relatives could no longer care for him, the county agency wanted to take permanent custody. The parents’ lawyers told the judge they agreed to the plan, but the judge did not talk directly to the parents to make sure their agreement was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The Appeals Court said the parents’ rights to due process were violated, so a new hearing is required.

State v. Saltis (2025). The court decided that the trial court was correct not to declare a mistrial. Saltis had argued that a witness for the defense, A.M., didn’t testify because the prosecutor told him he might need to be “Mirandized,” which Saltis claimed was like a threat. The court explained that the prosecutor did not actually threaten A.M. with criminal charges, but simply warned him of his rights against self-incrimination. The trial court also appointed A.M. a lawyer, and A.M. voluntarily chose not to testify. This court found that Saltis’s rights were not harmed and that the prosecutor’s warning was proper, so the jury’s verdict of guilty was valid.

In re H.B. (2025). The court agreed with the lower juvenile court and kept H.B. in permanent custody with the Wayne County Children Services Board (CSB). The court decided this because H.B. had been in temporary foster care for over 20 months, and Mother had not shown that she could provide a safe, stable home or meet his special needs. The facts showed that when CSB first got involved, the child's home was unsafe, with dirty conditions and little supervision. Mother made some progress in parenting classes and counseling, but she did not consistently follow through, and the child did not form a strong bond with her. H.B. was thriving in a foster home with supportive caregivers who helped him improve his speech, motor skills, and social development. The court concluded that staying in foster care was in H.B.’s best interest.

In re W.R. (2024). The court decided that the trial court was right to terminate the parents’ rights to their two young sons, W.R. and R.R., and give permanent custody to Summit County Children Services (CSB). The parents had already lost custody of their three older daughters because of abuse and neglect. The court found that the parents had not made their home safe, had not addressed Father’s sexual abuse of the older children, and had not shown they could meet the children’s needs. The boys had been in foster care most of their lives, and professionals testified that staying with the parents would not be safe. This court agreed that giving permanent custody to CSB was in the best interest of W.R. and R.R.

Du v. Nottingham Gate Estates HOA, Inc. (2024). The court decided that the trial court was wrong to say the HOA had a legal right to use the hike and bike trail on the homeowners’ lot. The homeowners, Du and Tang, had bought the lot and thought the trail was private. The HOA said the trail was part of neighborhood facilities. The trial court agreed with the HOA, but this court looked closely at the plats and the HOA’s rules and found that they only talked about future possible ownership, not an actual easement. Since the HOA never got a legal right to the trail, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.

Sullivan v. Walsh Jesuit High School (2024). The court decided that Walsh Jesuit was correct to dismiss Peter Sullivan’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated from his contract as chief financial officer because he was not an at-will employee. Sullivan had reported that male student athletes were receiving more financial assistance than female student athletes, which he said violated Title IX. The court found that Sullivan’s wrongful termination claim could not proceed, but his separate claim that he was retaliated against under Title IX could continue because he had alleged enough facts to suggest a possible link between his report and the non-renewal of his contract.