Chardon, Ohio – A longtime Ohio judge has been removed from the bench after state officials ruled that he illegally jailed two teenage boys in a youth detention facility because they refused to visit their estranged father. The Ohio Supreme Court issued a scathing 88-page opinion detailing how the judge’s actions violated multiple judicial ethics rules and undermined public trust in the justice system.
Overview of the Incident
The case centers on Geauga County Probate-Juvenile Court Judge Timothy Grendell, who was handed an 18-month suspension, with 12 months stayed, after the state’s highest court found that he used unlawful tactics to force family reunification. According to the court, Grendell ordered the boys, who were part of an ongoing custody dispute, to spend three days in juvenile detention after they refused to attend court-ordered visitation with their father, Grant Glasier.
The full ruling, released by the Supreme Court of Ohio, found that Grendell’s actions were not only improper but amounted to coercion and misuse of judicial authority. (Source: Supreme Court of Ohio opinion)
Background and Timeline of the Custody Case
The custody matter began years earlier, involving the divorce of Stacy Hartman and Grant Glasier. Under their 2010 judgment of dissolution, Hartman received primary custody of their three children, while Glasier retained visitation rights.
Over time, the family situation became increasingly strained. A court-appointed psychologist reported that the children were “seriously alienated” from their father and believed him to be abusive and alcoholic—claims the psychological evaluation did not support. Instead, the expert recommended a slow and therapeutic process of reunification.
However, despite repeated attempts at “therapeutic visitation,” the children continued refusing in-person visits and online communication, setting the stage for the judge’s intervention.
Judge Grendell’s Controversial Actions
Grendell took over the case in August 2019, despite having no prior domestic relations experience. In May 2020, Glasier informed the court that he had not seen his children in over three and a half years, prompting Grendell to order immediate, mandatory visitation on alternating weekends.
When the boys refused to go with their father during the first scheduled exchange, a series of calls between the constable, the judge, and the boys’ mother led to an abrupt decision: the teens would be detained.
The Supreme Court found that Grendell personally directed the constable to file the charges, contrary to his later claims that they originated independently. The court determined that the “unruly” charges were manufactured solely to justify detaining the minors.
In the court’s own words:
“Judge Grendell used the threat of detention—and when that failed, actual detention—in an attempt to coerce the boys to attend visitation with their father.”
Findings From the Ohio Supreme Court
The Supreme Court concluded that Grendell violated three major judicial conduct rules:
- Performing duties impartially
- Maintaining independence and objectivity
- Protecting public confidence in the judiciary
The justices stated that Grendell “lost his objectivity” and no longer acted as a neutral arbiter.
“Improperly ordering two teenage boys to spend a weekend in detention is not an act that instills public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,” the opinion stated.
GoFundMe Controversy Added to the Sanctions
The opinion also criticized Grendell over his handling of a GoFundMe page created to help the mother with legal expenses. The judge allegedly threatened to “claw back” funds raised by community members, a move the court said had no basis in law.
“We are particularly troubled by his threat to ‘claw back’ money raised through that page,” the justices wrote, noting that the comments appeared to be motivated by personal anger rather than concern for the children.
Impact on Families and Public Trust
The decision has sparked renewed conversations about judicial power, the treatment of minors in custody cases, and the importance of safeguarding children’s rights during contentious family disputes. Legal experts note that courts must balance parental rights with the emotional well-being of children, and this case demonstrates the consequences when that balance is lost.
Several child-advocacy professionals argue that forced detention can create trauma rather than healing, and that judges must rely on evidence-based reunification strategies rather than coercive measures.
Conclusion
Judge Timothy Grendell’s suspension underscores how critical judicial impartiality and child protection standards are within the family-court system. The Ohio Supreme Court’s sharp rebuke sends a message that even well-intended decisions cannot come at the cost of legal safeguards, especially when minors are involved.
Have you experienced similar challenges in custody disputes or family court proceedings? Share your experiences in the comments below.
