Disciplinary hearings begin for Geauga County Judge Timothy Grendell

Geauga County Juvenile and Probate Judge Timothy Grendell testifying before the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct. (Photo by Nick Evans, Ohio Capital Journal.)

In Columbus Monday, Geauga County Probate and Juvenile Judge Timothy Grendell faced charges of judicial misconduct. The allegations stem from Grendell’s controversial handling of a custody case, a running dispute with the county auditor and his testimony in favor of his wife’s legislation.

Monday’s proceedings before the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct were the first of six scheduled hearings in the case. The Ohio Disciplinary Counsel, which brought the charges, has the burden of proof in the case and must demonstrate Grendell’s guilt by clear and convincing evidence.

In his opening statements, disciplinary counsel attorney Joseph Caligiuri called Grendell’s conduct “a stain on our judiciary.”

“Judge Grendell manipulated the juvenile justice system to affect change in a civil contested custody matter,” Caligiuri argued, “and when he did that, he not only abused his power, but he disregarded the law.”

George Jonson, representing Grendell, argued the disciplinary counsel is making an “emotional” case, but the emotional fallout of his actions is beside the point.

“Those aren’t the questions that we ask,” he insisted. “The questions that we ask are did the judge follow the law? Did the judge follow the Code of Judicial Conduct? Did the judge violate the rules of professional conduct?

“I haven’t heard anything about those aspects of this case, except as a conclusion,” he argued.

Grendell on the stand

The morning’s first witness was the judge himself. After he was sworn in, Grendell took the stand, behind a stack of massive three ring binders — thousands of pages of exhibits, depositions and other court documents. At times, the proceedings crawled forward as the judge shuffled through one binder after another looking for the relevant passage instead of using the computer monitor.

“I’m a paper person,” he said with a grin.

The first day’s questions of Grendell centered on the custody case involving Stacy Hartman and Grant Glasier. The couple had three kids together and had been divorced for nearly 10 years when they first came before Grendell in January of 2020. After an incident of alleged abuse, for which Glasier wasn’t charged, the couple’s boys refused to visit their father.

In May of 2020 Grendell ordered visitation, and threatened the mother with sanctions if she didn’t encourage the boys to go. The boys still refused, and because they were disobeying a parent, Grendell put them in juvenile detention under “unruly” charges. They spent the weekend in isolation and were restricted from contacting their mother.

Caligiuri sought to demonstrate discrepancies between what Grendell said before the incident and how he justified his actions after the fact.

On the stand, Grendell defended forcing the boys to visit their father because it was necessary to overcome “parental alienation.” He referred to a 2018 psychologist report prepared by Dr. Farshid Afsarifard demonstrating the boys’ alienation with their father and warning against allowing the children to cut their father out of their life.

Grendell argued he was motivated by the report’s determination that “allowing the children to terminate their relationship with the father would cause serious psychological harm.”

“That’s what drove all my decisions throughout this whole proceeding,” he said.

But Caligiuri played back an earlier hearing in which Grendell himself told the parents that approach would be counterproductive.

“I actually believe trying to force these kids to visit with dad before we have a therapeutic (visitation) person in place will be more harmful than good for everybody,” he said.

At the time that Grendell issued the visitation order at the heart of the dispute, the kids and parents were working with a family counselor. But the counselor was still interviewing family members, and Grendell was done with waiting for visitation to begin.

Later, Caligiuri questioned Grendell’s use of detention as a punishment. He pointed to “bench cards,” a kind of cheat sheet prepared by the Supreme Court of Ohio to help guide judges’ decisions in juvenile cases. Under its directives for detention, the document gives specific circumstances in which detention is appropriate. The first is to “protect the child from immediate or threatened physical or emotional harm.”

“You would agree that that did not apply in this case, correct?” Caligiuri asked.

“Oh, that’s exactly what applied,” Grendell said.

Again, Grendell pointed to the 2018 report’s warnings about emotional harm.

“Your testimony is that because Dr. (Afsarifard) warned about potential harm to the children, two and a half years earlier, that that was the basis for you putting them in custody for three days?” Caligiuri asked.

“Because nothing had changed in that period,” Grendell argued.

Sua sponte

Caligiuri also pressed the judge to explain how he arrived at forcing the boys to visit their father in the first place. Ahead of the hearing — on the father’s motion to change custody — the parents contracted with a doctor to assist with visitation. That doctor had conducted interviews but had yet to produce a report, so the father proposed delaying a decision.

But instead, Grendell stepped in and ordered visitation sua sponte, or “on one’s own behalf.” From the bench, Grendell converted the father’s motion to a motion to enforce parental visitation.

Caligiuri asked on what authority he made that decision and whether changing the nature of the hearing without notice to the parents.

“Did you give them due process that day?” Caligiuri asked.

“I believe so,” Grendell said.

“Was it fair, in your opinion, to switch the hearing which they walked in prepared to discuss, which was custody, and make it a visitation hearing?”

“Yes,” Grendell stated.

Grendell argued his sua sponte motion ordering visitation was meant to end further delays, and that he was acting in the best interest of the children.

“People needed to get on board with helping the children take the therapeutic visitation seriously,” Grendell argued, “Twenty-one months after that order, and nine months after (it was) in our court, we still hadn’t advanced the father’s visitation one foot, and the time had come to try something different.”

On the evening Grendell ordered Hartman to drop off her boys with their Glasier, he was in regular contact with his constable other officials. Phone records and text messages show they were discussing the prospect of sending the boys to juvenile hall minutes after the drop off was supposed to occur and they refused to go with Glasier.

“So you had already decided after that first call, that the boys were going to detention?” Caligiuri said.

“Incorrect,” Grendell insisted.

Caligiuri didn’t buy that and continued hammering away at the judge’s involvement in coordinating the drop off, the time in juvenile detention and later hearings for the “unruly” charges. The county prosecutor refused to take the case, and Grendell appointed an outside attorney to argue the case — twice.

“You could see where a person might be concerned about your objectivity in this case given your involvement, correct?”

“No,” Grendell said without further explanation.

Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

The post Disciplinary hearings begin for Geauga County Judge Timothy Grendell appeared first on Ohio Capital Journal .