What Ohio must change so this never happens to another child
My sons' counselor was chosen by one parent, started from one parent's account, told me and my lawyer in November 2022 that she had no concerns about me, and then, ten months later, wrote to the court about me without ever doing a custody evaluation. I had to fight for two years to see my own sons' records. These are the changes I am asking for.
Changes needed in Ohio law
- A treating counselor's letter is not a custody evaluation. Ohio already has standards for custody evaluators. The evaluator must be appointed by the court, must interview each parent and each child, must gather records from schools, counselors and the guardian ad litem, and must check the history of abuse (Sup.R. 8.13, formerly 91.04). The evaluator must also complete 40 hours of approved training before appointment (Sup.R. 8.17(B)). The counselor board's own rule says a treating therapist who is asked for a custody or visitation recommendation must say she has not done an evaluation and that it "would be unethical" to make one (Ohio Adm.Code 4757-6-01(F)). Ohio should bar a court from considering any custody or visitation opinion from a child's treating counselor unless the author meets the custody-evaluator standards.
- Both parents told before a child starts counseling during a custody case. She started on June 16, 2022 with my ex-husband's account of me, eight days after he got temporary custody. Three months later she testified, "I don't know mom." When a custody case is pending, a counselor should have to notify both parents and the guardian ad litem in writing before treating the child, get the custody orders herself, and invite both parents to intake.
- Safety concerns must be assessed and the assessment documented. On September 16, 2022 my lawyer told her about concerns for my sons' safety with their father. The expert who reviewed her chart found no documented assessment and no report. Counselors are mandated reporters under R.C. 2151.421. When a parent or a parent's lawyer reports a concern, the counselor's record should have to show what she assessed and what she decided.
- Equal records access without a fight. A parent who is not the residential parent is entitled to the child's records on the same terms as the residential parent unless a court orders otherwise (R.C. 3109.051(H)(1)). After my 2024 decree gave me equal access to my sons' health records, she released them only with redactions, through her lawyer. When a counselor withholds or redacts a child's records from a parent, Ohio should require a written reason and a copy to the court. The rule on releasing records to another licensed professional (Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-09(K)) should not be used to keep a parent from her own child's records.
- A duty to report to the court and the guardian ad litem, both ways. In November 2022 she told me she had no concerns and the kids were thriving, and she asked whether she was allowed to reach out to the judge. A counselor treating a child in a custody case should have a clear duty and a clear channel to report to the guardian ad litem and the court in writing, with copies to both parents. That should cover concerns, and also the absence of them.
What Senate Bill 174 should add
Senate Bill 174 of the 136th General Assembly, sponsored by Senators Theresa Gavarone and Paula Hicks-Hudson, rewrites Ohio custody law. It replaces "residential parent," shared parenting and sole custody with court-approved parenting plans. It passed the Senate on November 12, 2025, and it is now in the House Judiciary Committee, which last heard it on June 10, 2026. It is not law yet. Section numbers below are the bill's new numbers, taken from the Legislative Service Commission analysis of the version as passed by the Senate.
- Hold anyone who advises the court on custody to the custody-evaluator standards. The bill lets the court order a custody evaluation "as described in the Rules of Superintendence" (R.C. 3109.0439). It defines an "evaluator" as a person "appointed or designated by the court" (R.C. 3109.0440). It should also say that a letter or recommendation about custody or visitation from anyone else, including a child's own counselor, cannot be considered unless that person was appointed and meets the licensure, training and interview requirements of Sup.R. 8.13 and 8.17.
- Treat counselors' letters like evaluators' reports. The bill requires an investigator's or evaluator's signed report to be filed and made available to both parents, and the author to be subject to cross-examination (R.C. 3109.0440 and 3109.0441). The same should apply to any counselor's letter or opinion that reaches the court.
- Make court-ordered counseling neutral. The bill lets the court order a parent to counseling with a licensed mental health professional (R.C. 3109.0432). It should require that any counselor for a child in a parenting case be agreed on by both parents or chosen by the court, and that the counselor report to the guardian ad litem and the court on a set schedule.
- Add penalties for denying a parent the child's records. The bill carries over the right of every parent to a child's records unless a court finds otherwise (R.C. 3109.0516 to 3109.0519). It adds penalty sections for child-care centers and student activities (R.C. 3109.0524 and 3109.0529), but none for other records. Counseling and health records should be covered too.
Lori Long is the counselor my ex-husband chose for my sons in June 2022, eight days after the court gave him temporary custody. She was never my counselor. She began on his account of me, that I had "fled to Florida for 38 days" and was "not in the picture." By her deposition three months later she had spoken with him five times and with me once. In November 2022 she told my lawyer she had "no worries" about me and told me she was "happy to talk to the judge." Ten months later she wrote to the court about me instead. After my 2024 decree gave me equal access to my sons' records, she released them only with redactions, through her lawyer.
What happened
My ex-husband brought my Older Son to Lori Long on June 16, 2022 and my Younger Son on July 13. Her intake records his claim that I "fled to Florida for 38 days" as the presenting problem, without saying who said it. She did not get the custody orders, and she did not contact me before treating them. When she asked him for my number, "He told me that she was not in the picture." On September 16, 2022 my lawyer told her my side and raised concerns about my sons' safety with their father. She wrote, "I did not know any of this before." Her chart shows no assessment and no report. On September 29, 2022 she testified, "I don't know mom."
From October 19 to November 9, 2022 I sat in four of my sons' sessions. On November 2 she told me there had been "no issues" and "the kids are thriving here." On November 8 she wrote that she had "no worries" about me being alone with them. On November 9 she told me, "I told her, I'm happy to talk to the judge." She never contacted the judge or Attorney Kohrs. The first thing she sent the court was a letter dated September 28, 2023, describing what my ex-husband told her about me and saying she stopped my sessions because of how I acted in them. Two months earlier she had written to me, "I have nothing to do with custody or legal issues."
Of the 45 call sheets in her chart, 24 are with my ex-husband and one is with me. In 2024 she wrote "I recommend supervised calls" about my phone calls with my sons and told him to "feel free to say it was my recommendation." She checked with his attorney before releasing my sons' records to me, refused my records request on October 17, 2024 because of a letter from his attorney, and released redacted records in December 2024. Her lawyer then said she "will not be providing unredacted copies." She closed my sons' case on June 13, 2025. In March 2026 an independent counselor reviewed her record and found that "at least 19 different laws and rules" may have been violated. The counselor board closed my complaint without finding a violation, and the federal Office for Civil Rights closed my HIPAA complaint without a finding.
Running totals of what this cost me are on the costs and time page.
This is the fourth page in a series about the professionals in my case, Summit County Domestic Relations Court, DR-2022-03-0667, in the order they came into it. I am not a lawyer. Where I name a rule or statute, I quote it and set it beside what the records show. Where the outcome went against me, I say so.
1. Who she is
Lorette "Lori" Long signs as "PCC-S, LICDC-CS, CCCJS." She runs Lori Long Counseling Services, LLC in Cuyahoga Falls. The federal NPI registry lists her as a sole proprietor holding Ohio licenses E3139 (professional counselor), A11029 (mental health counselor) and 965570 (addiction counselor) (NPI 1265448146). PCC-S is a professional clinical counselor with supervisor status, licensed by the Ohio Counselor, Social Worker and Marriage and Family Therapist Board under R.C. Chapter 4757 and Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 4757. She is not a psychologist; on April 8, 2026 the Ohio psychology board told me, "We don't license Lori Long." At her deposition she said she was a former probation officer and that she specializes in chemical dependency and anxiety (Long dep. 9/29/22, pp. 7, 15).
Her role. She was my sons' counselor. My Older Son was her client from June 16, 2022 and my Younger Son from July 13, 2022 (dep. pp. 9, 11). She saw them weekly (p. 31), and by December 2024 monthly (her email, 12/6/24). She was never my therapist. Her chart holds 84 progress notes and 45 call sheets from June 16, 2022 to June 4, 2025 (expert review, p. 2). She says she closed the case on June 13, 2025 (her email to my lawyer's office, 10/12/26).
2. June 16, 2022: intake on one parent's account
The court gave my ex-husband temporary custody on June 8, 2022. He brought my Older Son to her on June 16. Her intake form gives this as the presenting problem, with no note of who said it: "Parents getting divorced. Mom took sons and fled to Florida for 38 days until dad could get custody back. Dad now has Full custody. Mom can only visit at place of peace supervised visits only" (intake, 6/16/22). That is his claim. On May 9, 2022 the court had named me my sons' custodian (dep. pp. 15–17). The intake leaves my sons' birthdates and ages blank, and her chart lists my ex-husband under "Client Info" (expert review, pp. 3, 5).
At her deposition she said that was what he told her. Asked whether anyone used the word "kidnapped," she said, "That's what I wrote down" (dep. pp. 9–10). Asked whether it was customary to talk only with one parent, she answered "Yes." She was never given my contact information. When she asked him for it, "He told me that she was not in the picture" (p. 12). He described the civil protection order to her, but she never saw it. The only court paper he gave her was a 28-page Domestic Relations entry (pp. 4, 13–14). From "the little bit I've been told by dad," she said, "I just kind of assumed a little bit that there was some domestic violence in the household. ... And so I just kind of went with that a little bit" (p. 25).
The rule is plain. As part of informed consent, a counselor "shall obtain any relevant court documents pertaining to custody, visitation, shared parenting ... before proceeding with treatment" (Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-02(B)(5)). Her records must be "accurate" and reflect "the services provided" (4757-5-09(B)). She did not get the orders. She wrote one parent's claim into the intake as the reason for treatment. She did not contact the other legal parent before treating my sons.
3. September 16, 2022: my lawyer tells her my side
Three months in, my lawyer called her. Her call sheet records what my lawyer said: that I had been abused by my sons' father, went to a shelter, got an attorney and had the documents to take my sons to Florida legally. She wrote, "I explained, I did not know any of this before" (call sheet, 9/16/22, expert review p. 5).
The same call sheet records concerns my lawyer raised about my sons' safety with their father (call sheet, 9/16/22, expert review p. 22). The expert found no documented assessment of those concerns and no report: "It is unclear how the clinician interpreted the information documented in this call sheet or whether any action was taken in response" (expert review, p. 23). Counselors are mandated reporters of suspected child abuse in Ohio (R.C. 2151.421(A)(1)). Thirteen days later, at her deposition, she had a note of only one conversation with me, and that note was missing from her file (dep. p. 5).
4. September 29, 2022: her deposition
My side subpoenaed her. My lawyers, my ex-husband's lawyer and the guardian ad litem, Brendon Kohrs, attended. Her answers under oath included:
- She had a note of only one conversation with me, and it was missing from her file (p. 5).
- She had been "told that mom did not want to do supervised visits." Asked who told her, she named my ex-husband, "on July 11." Asked whether it would surprise her that I "absolutely wanted supervised visits any way that she could get them," she said, "Yes" (p. 26).
- "The thing that concerns me, honestly, the most is dad" (p. 26).
- Asked whether she had concerns about my time with my sons: "I don't know mom so I really can't say I have any concerns because I don't know mom." She said she would "need to meet with mom on a regular basis ... and incorporate her into the kids' therapy," and that after we spoke, "the kids had no concerns" (pp. 28–29).
- She had spoken with my ex-husband five times and with me once. She had spoken once with the GAL and never with the visit supervisor (pp. 29–30).
The court-reporter fee for her deposition was $105, billed to my side's lawyer (Associated Court Reporting invoice 20797-22).
5. October 7, 2022: "I assured her I have no bias"
Her October 7, 2022 call sheet records a call from my lawyer, who "was concerned I had a bias against mom because of what the GAL said." Her note continues: "I assured her I have no bias I just want her to be able to see the kids and if I can facilitate that I am willing to do so" (call sheet, 10/7/22, expert review p. 16). Two months earlier, on August 9, 2022, her call sheet records my ex-husband telling her his attorney had filed a motion to stop my visits again, and her reply: "I explained that is all he can do keep going to his attorney keep the boys safety as his priority" (call sheet, 8/9/22, expert review p. 16).
6. October 19 to November 9, 2022: four sessions with me, "no worries," and "happy to talk to the judge"
After the deposition I was allowed into four of my sons' sessions, from October 19 to November 9, 2022. Her note for the first one reads, "Mom here for reunification session" (note, 10/19/22, expert review p. 10). The expert found no consent form for me and no record that she clarified who her clients were (expert review, pp. 10–11, 24). The rule says a counselor who sees family members together "shall clarify with all parties which individuals shall be considered clients," especially where she may be asked to testify in a custody case (Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-03(D)).
In my recording of the November 2, 2022 session, she says she will call the guardian ad litem and ask whether she can reach out to the judge.
Lori Long: "…they're more open and playful… Let me reach out to Brendan. Let me tell him how the visits are going, and ask him, am I allowed to reach out to the judge? Or at least let him know what things are going here, and tell him, like, things are going really well. I don't have any concerns. And see if he would be willing to at least give that to the judge… 'Cause I don't have any concerns. So whatever concerns the other guy had, I don't have any of those concerns. They're completely fine with me."
Lori Long: "All right, well, I'm gonna call and [say], listen: she's been coming here for three weeks. There's been no issues. The kids are thriving here. So can we report that back to the judge?"
On November 8, 2022 my lawyer, Kimberly Valenti, called her. Her call sheet reads: "I explained I do not have any concerns for mom to see the kids. She appears appropriate with the kids when she is with me in session and appropriate with them as far as redirection and discipline so I have no worries for her spending time alone with them at this time." Asked whether she would tell the judge, she wrote: "I explained if I need to, I am not opposed to it" (call sheet, 11/8/22).
The next session was November 9. It opened with the judge, who had not yet ruled.
"And we haven't heard from the judge yet." "It's been like three weeks." Lori Long: "I talked to your attorney. I told her, I'm happy to talk to the judge." Me: "She did ask that you could call her again, because she's gonna put in a motion or something." Lori Long: "'Cause I told her, I said, I'll go. I mean, I'm happy, I've been happy to talk to the judge."
On November 14, 2022 the court gave me unsupervised visits (JE 11/14/22). After that, my sessions in her office ended. The expert found no record that the end of my part in the sessions was agreed with me or that I was given notice or a referral, which the rule requires (expert review p. 11; Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-02(E)(1)). After telling me on November 9 that she was happy to talk to the judge, she never contacted the judge or Attorney Kohrs.
7. November 2022 to July 2023: her emails to me
When I asked her about my Younger Son's accidents at school, she wrote back on November 22, 2022: "First, I do not give 'updates' after every session as I do not have to do so. However, if there is something significant that arises, I will contact you. Second, I am not aware of how many changes of clothes [my Younger Son] has at school because I am not [his] parent. St. Barnabas does not contact me when [he] has an accident" (her email, 11/22/22, 10:49 PM). I am his parent.
On June 8, 2023 she emailed me a list of rules she had gone over with my Older Son, "asking that both parents follow these rules." The next morning I asked her how my sons' right to phone calls with me could be honored when I had not had a single call. She answered: "I do not think there is anything in writing that says the boys can not call if they want. I will check into this if you would like me to" (emails, 6/8–6/9/23). Nothing more about it came from her.
On July 21, 2023, when I asked for help with my mother's contact with her grandsons, she wrote: "Unfortunately I have nothing to do with custody or legal issues" (her email, 7/21/23, 1:18 PM). Her best advice, later that night, was to "try to be kind to each other during the times you are switching with the boys" (her email, 7/21/23, 9:30 PM).
8. September 28, 2023: her letter to the court
Ten weeks after "I have nothing to do with custody or legal issues," she wrote a typed letter on her letterhead, dated September 28, 2023, addressed "Summit Court ... To whom it may concern," about my sons and me (her letter, 9/28/23). The records I have do not show who asked for it. It says she has been the counselor for my sons "since 6/14/2022"; her intake and her testimony say June 16. It says, "Their father, who was their primary custodian, reported the boys enjoyed coming and looked forward to their next visit." About me, it says:
- "Mom started coming to visits to reintegrate the boys on 10/17/2022. We stopped those visits when mom regained her unsupervised visitation on 11/9/2023." The court order was November 14, 2022, not 2023.
- "I wanted to go back to working just with the boys because when mom was in session, she put [my Younger Son] on her lap, and he stayed there throughout the entire session." On November 8, 2022 she had written that I "appear[] appropriate with the kids when she is with me in session," and on November 2 she had told me, "There's been no issues."
The rest of the letter connects my sons' distress to their time with me. I am not reproducing it, because it is made of my sons' words in therapy. When I asked her on October 3, 2023 whether she had verified what she was telling the court, she answered: "These issues were reported by [both boys]" (her email, 10/3/23, 10:05 PM). Her chart has one call sheet with me and no session with me after November 9, 2022. She never did a custody evaluation.
The counselor rules say a treating counselor is a fact witness, not a custody evaluator. She must stay "objective, impartial," and "special competencies and knowledge are required" for court reports, including custody reports (Ohio Adm.Code 4757-6-01(A), (B)). If asked for a custody or visitation recommendation, she must "cite their role as the primary therapist," say she has "not performed a custody, visitation and/or guardianship evaluation," and that "it would be unethical for them to make any recommendation outside of their role as a treating therapist" (4757-6-01(F)). Counselors "shall not diagnose or make a recommendation regarding any person who is not a client" (4757-5-02(B)(13)). A court-appointed custody evaluator would have had to interview me, observe my sons with me, and gather information from the school and the guardian ad litem (Sup.R. 8.13(B)). The expert lists the letter among at least four times she practiced beyond her scope (expert review, pp. 9, 24).
9. 2023 to 2025: one parent's line to her
Of the 45 call sheets in her chart, 24 are with my ex-husband, 4 with the next guardian ad litem, James Phillips, and one with me (expert review, p. 2). The expert calls the pattern triangulation: "the clinician appeared to act in the role of consultant and potential therapist to [my ex-husband] by providing direction and, at times, emotional support" (p. 26). Her own words in those call sheets:
- May 24, 2023: "I explained let his attorney's work on that. I will try and talk to the boys about what is being said to them at mom's house" (call sheet, expert review p. 14).
- March 11, 2024, after I asked her for all my sons' notes on March 9 and March 13: "He wanted me to talk to his attorney before sending those and I agree to do so and I sent an email asking them to please advise on sending them as I do not have a subpoena" (call sheet, expert review p. 20; my emails 3/9 and 3/13/24). The same week, on March 12, she emailed me that she was "currently not seeing" my Younger Son and was "only seeing" my Older Son (her email, 3/12/24). I had not been told.
- June 10, 2024, on a call with the GAL: "Mom's divorce coach reached out but I explained I could not speak to her until mom signed the release." And: "I have not received this release back from mom so I am not sure how I could be of use to a divorce coach as I am not moms counselor" (call sheet, expert review p. 12). I asked her office for the release form on June 1, 2024, her office manager answered on June 3, and I signed the release (emails, 5/28–6/3/24). The expert points out that asking me for a release is what a counselor does for a client, and that saying "I am not moms counselor" in the same note creates "confusion and potentially violat[es] Carey Ann's rights as a client" (p. 26).
- July 15, 2024, on a call with my ex-husband, about my phone calls with my sons: "I recommend supervised calls from now on because that is going to do nothing but make the boys more confused and upset." And: "I said if she gave him any problems feel free to say it was my recommendation and contact his attorney ... particularly because she is not being truthful with the boys" (call sheets, expert review pp. 8, 12). I was not her client, and she had not assessed me.
- July 25, 2024 and February 27, 2025, in my sons' session notes, she recorded telling them that "mom telling them it is up to dad is a lie," and "Mom is not being honest" (notes, expert review p. 15).
- March 27 and April 13, 2025, to my ex-husband: "I encouraged him to not encourage just let his attorney handle it," and "I explained the more he lets her believe she made that happen she will continue to do it. He agreed" (call sheets, expert review pp. 12–13).
Her chart also records conversations about my sons with at least eight people for whom the expert found no signed release, including my lawyer, Attorney Kohrs, James Phillips, a school staff member and me. It also holds a call sheet of her consulting her own attorney, which the expert calls "a personal call" that does not belong in a client's chart (expert review, pp. 7, 24). The rule: "Confidential information shall only be revealed to others when the clients or other persons legally authorized to give consent on behalf of the clients, have given their informed consent" (Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-02(D)(1)).
10. 2024: my sons' records
My divorce decree was journalized on July 17, 2024. It says: "Regardless of whether such parent is designated as Residential Parent or Non-Residential Parent, each party shall have equal access to all school, health, or agency records or reports" (Decree, 7/17/24). Ohio law says the same thing. A non-residential parent "is entitled to access, under the same terms and conditions," to any record of the child that the residential parent can see, unless a court limits it. "Any keeper of any record who knowingly fails to comply ... is in contempt of court" (R.C. 3109.051(H)(1)–(2)). The counselor rules make it personal. A counselor "shall be aware of and adhere to" that statute, and "a complete reading and understanding of this section is mandatory for any counselor ... providing services for children" (Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-09(M)).
On October 16, 2024 I emailed her for my sons' history and told her a subpoena should have reached her. She answered on October 17: "I can not do this as I have received a letter from [my ex-husband's] attorney stating they are going to file something to appeal this subpoena so I should not do anything at this time" (emails, 10/16–10/17/24). My ex-husband moved to quash my subpoenas to her and other providers on October 25, and the court granted the motion "for good cause shown" on November 13, 2024 (Motion 10/25/24; Order 11/13/24). On November 22, 2024 I filed a motion for contempt that asked the court to remove her as my sons' therapist (docket, 11/22/24). The court never ruled on it.
When the records came, parts were crossed out. On December 6, 2024 she wrote: "According to our Privacy Practices ... under the HIPPA standards, I can redact information if I think it will negatively impact the client-counselor relationship." When I asked for full copies that day, she wrote that she could not send anything within 24 hours "because I have to consult with my attorney" (her emails, 12/6/24, 3:10 and 3:58 PM). On December 17, 2024 her lawyer, Brandon M. Smith, wrote: "Ms. Long will not be providing unredacted copies of the records," "any redactions were made pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code § 4757-5-09," and "She has no obligation to create type-written notes." He told me to stop including her on any correspondence (his email, 12/17/24). I sent further demands on 12/11, 12/15, 12/17 and 12/30/24 and a final demand on 6/4/25.
HIPAA lets a provider deny a parent acting as a child's personal representative some access, but only when "a licensed health care professional has determined, in the exercise of professional judgment," that access "is reasonably likely to cause substantial harm to the individual or another person." The denial must be "timely" and "written," "in plain language," and must offer review by a different licensed professional (45 C.F.R. 164.524(a)(3)(iii), (a)(4), (d)). The Ohio rule says that where a counselor finds "for clearly stated treatment reasons" that disclosure would have "an adverse effect," she "shall provide the record to" another licensed professional the client designates (Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-09(K)). Her own Privacy Practices, which she attached to her December 6 email, say: "If denied access, you will receive a timely, written notice of the decision and reasoning for it. A copy of this notice will also become part of your record," and that she may redact what "could cause harm to the patient." Her email gave a different standard: "negatively impact the client-counselor relationship." My emails show what came after that. Her lawyer wrote on December 12, 2024 that "Any redactions made were pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code § 4757-5-09" and, an hour later, "Records have been redacted or withheld in accordance with law. Ms. Long will not be providing unredacted copies of the records" (his emails, 12/12/24, 3:30 and 4:13 PM). He repeated it on December 17. None of the emails from her or her lawyer gives a reason for any specific redaction, offers review by another licensed professional, or offers to send the records to a professional I choose. After December 17, 2024 the only reply in my email to my demands of 12/30/24 and 6/4/25 is his out-of-office message of December 30, 2024.
A set of her records later reached my current lawyers in a subpoena response dated July 18, 2025 (Exhibit P, Stafford Law bates 0001+).
11. What an independent counselor found in her records
On March 16, 2026, Dr. David Blankenship, Ph.D., LPCC-S, a clinical director in Akron with 21 years of practice, finished a 27-page review of her records for my sons: 245 pages covering June 16, 2022 to June 4, 2025. I paid $9,450 for it (31.5 hours at $300). His opinions:
- What she did well: "advocacy for and consistent attention to the welfare of" my sons, and progress notes with "extensive detail beyond what is typically required" (pp. 3, 23).
- Consent and client identity: it is "unclear" whether informed consent was properly reviewed, for my sons or for me, and my ex-husband appears under "Client Info" (4757-5-02(B)(1)–(2)).
- Intake and records: birthdates blank; his account written as the presenting problem with no source; no diagnosis in most of the record; goals that are not specific or measurable; and "overwhelming examples" of not separating what was reported from what she observed (4757-5-09(B)).
- Suspected abuse: the 9/16/22 concerns from my lawyer, with no documented assessment or action (pp. 22–23).
- Confidentiality: no releases on file for eight people named in her call sheets, and a personal call to her own attorney filed in my sons' chart (4757-5-02(D)(1)).
- Scope: "at least four instances" of practice beyond her competence, including the 2023 court letter and the "I recommend supervised calls" note (4757-5-02(A)(4); 4757-6-01(B), (F)).
- Roles: seven examples of improper dual roles, including the switch to "reunification" with me and acting as a consultant to my ex-husband (4757-5-03).
- Bias and leading questions: "at least 16 examples of compromised clinical objectivity and bias," and leading questions to my sons "implying the children's mother is being dishonest with them on more than one occasion" (pp. 26–27).
- Billing: 49 progress notes coded as individual therapy (90837) when more than one person took part. Family therapy (90847) would fit better (4757-5-09(L)).
- Overall: "at least 19 different laws and rules ... may have been violated," and "there is a high probability that Ms. Long's clinical practices may have contributed to harm" to my sons, to me, to my ex-husband and possibly to others (p. 27).
12. 2025: the end of her care
The last progress note in her records that I have is for a session with both of my sons on June 4, 2025 (her progress note, 6/4/25). She then removed herself as their counselor. On October 12, 2026 she wrote to my lawyers: "I closed this case on June 13, 2025 and that is the last note I have for this case" (her email to Stafford Law, 10/12/26, 10:34 AM). My emails contain no notice from her to me that she was ending their care.
On June 12, 2025 she reported me to the Cuyahoga Falls police for telecommunications harassment over my emails. I received a verbal warning; there was no arrest and no charge (CFPD report 2025-00020381). On June 13 I filed my own informational report about her refusal to release the records (CFPD 2025-00020484).
13. My complaints about her
These are the complaints about Lori Long that I filed, sent or drafted, with every answer, refusal or closure I received, from my sent email, my email drafts, and my Dropbox and Google Drive. Times are Eastern. "Sent" means my sent mail or a receipt shows it went out. None of my saved email drafts is a complaint about her.
| Date and time | To | What I complained about | Sent or drafted | Response or outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/22/2024 | Summit County Domestic Relations Court | My motion for contempt that asked the court to remove her: "Motion for Contempt of Court, Removal of Therapist, and Assignment of Trauma-Informed Care." | Filed | The court never ruled on it. |
| 11/25/2024 (letter date) | Ohio Counselor, Social Worker & MFT Board | Grievance: "Ms. Long began seeing my sons without contacting me to confirm or verify the narrative provided by my ex-husband"; "Refusal to Release Records to a Legal Parent." It asked the board to review her conduct. | Sent | 12/3/24, 1:41 PM: the board asked me for more information "regarding your complaints against both Lori Longs and Aimee Thomas" (INV-CO2024-14262). I answered on 12/5/24 at 9:38 PM: "Lori long just sent me partial notes for my sons full of redacted information." 1/6/26, 10:26 AM: "You will need to discuss with your attorney if you feel the records request was not properly fulfilled. This matter has been closed on our end." 10:52 AM: "There is no violation of our laws and rules identified and your complaint has been closed." |
| 12/12/2024, 3:47 PM | Brandon M. Smith, her lawyer | "... some of the redacted information is not to protect the client relationship but to cover up her unprofessionalism and harm caused to my sons." I demanded full records. | Sent | 4:13 PM: "Ms. Long will not be providing unredacted copies of the records." |
| 12/12/2024 | Summit County Common Pleas Court (draft) | "Civil Complaint for Damages" against her for "professional negligence, parental alienation, emotional distress, child endangerment." | Drafted, not yet filed | None. The draft is in my Dropbox folder "Motions to file." |
| 12/13/2024, 7:21 PM | Brandon M. Smith | "Concerns Regarding Lori Long's Therapy Notes, Ethical and Legal Implications, and Impact on My Sons." | Sent | Answered 12/17/24 (below). |
| 12/15/2024, 11:20 AM | Lori Long and Brandon M. Smith | "FORMAL Notice of HIPAA Violations and Grievance Concerning Unauthorized Redactions in My Sons' Records." "These redactions appear to be self-serving." | Sent | 12/17/24, 3:22 PM, her lawyer, answering "this and 8 other e-mails": "Ms. Long will not be providing unredacted copies of the records." |
| 12/17/2024, 6:15 AM | Lori Long and Brandon M. Smith | "Typed notes": "Your handwriting is difficult to read." | Sent | 12/17/24, her lawyer: "She has no obligation to create type-written notes." |
| 12/17/2024, 4:19 and 4:57 PM | Brandon M. Smith | "Improper Redactions of Records in Violation of Ohio Adm. Code § 4757-5-09"; then "Formal Demand for Release of Unredacted Records and Termination of Lori Long's Involvement," asking "that Ms. Lori Long immediately cease acting as their therapist." | Sent | No reply in my email. |
| 12/30/2024, 8:01 PM | Lori Long and Brandon M. Smith | "Formal Request for Unredacted Records": "If the records are not made available to me within 24 hours, I will have no choice but to involve law enforcement." | Sent | His out-of-office message, 12/30/24. |
| 3/1/2025 | A contact, by email (subject "Lori") | A template "Complaint Letter to the Ohio Licensing Board," with blank name and address fields. | Template only, not sent to the board | None. |
| 6/4/2025, 6:24 PM | Ohio Counselor, Social Worker & MFT Board (portal) | Complaint CO2025-7392. My final demand to her that evening says: "As of today, I have filed formal complaints against you with: The Ohio CSWMFT Licensing Board; The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) under the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for HIPAA violation; The Ohio Attorney General's Office." | Sent | Board receipt, 6/4/25 ("Complaint Received"). No decision in my email. |
| 6/4/2025, 6:41 PM | Ohio Attorney General (portal) | Complaint 9052632781, one of the three my 6/4/25 letter lists. | Sent | Automatic confirmation, 6/4/25. No decision in my email. |
| 6/4/2025, 7:26 PM | U.S. HHS Office for Civil Rights (portal) | Complaint No. 624860, the HIPAA complaint my 6/4/25 letter lists. | Sent | No decision in my email. |
| 6/4/2025, 7:54 PM | Lori Long | "Final Demand for Immediate Release of Records": "my access to them has been repeatedly and unlawfully denied." | Sent | No reply in my email. On 6/12/25 she reported me to police (Section 12). |
| 6/8/2025, 2:27 PM | Lori Long | "Urgent Clarification of Inaccuracies and Hearsay in Your Court Letter": "Statements beginning with 'Dad reported' ... are hearsay, not clinical observations." | Sent | No reply in my email. |
| 6/13/2025 | Cuyahoga Falls police | Informational report about her refusal to release my sons' records. | Filed | Report CFPD 2025-00020484. |
| 1/6/2026, 7:22 AM | Carolyn Knauss, Ohio Psychology Board investigator | "Do you have any update on Lori long and Aimee Thomas yet?" | Sent | 8:26 AM: "I don't have any updates." |
| 1/27/2026, 9:36 PM | Ohio Counselor, Social Worker & MFT Board (Complaints and ethics addresses) | "Formal Complaint Requesting Investigation – Lori Long, PCC-S / LICDC-CS," including "Failure of mandated reporting under ORC §2151.421." | Sent | 1/28/26, 8:22 AM, the board's ethics address: "Complaints must be filed via the online portal." No case number was given. |
| 1/27/2026, 9:40 PM | U.S. HHS Office for Civil Rights | "HIPAA Complaint Request – Lori Long Counseling Services, LLC": "improper use and disclosure of protected health information." | Sent | OCR received it 1/28/26 (No. 26-672493). OCR summarized the complaint as alleging that her practice "impermissibly disclosed [my] minor children's protected health information (PHI) for custody or legal matters." 10/1/26, 2:39 PM: closed "through the provision of technical assistance." |
| 4/7/2026, 9:02 and 9:05 PM | Ohio Psychology Board (enforcement and Carolyn Knauss), copy to the counselor board | "Lori Long," with an attachment: "Please confirm receipt." | Sent | 4/8/26, 8:17 AM, Knauss: "We don't license Lori Long." 4/8/26, 12:45 PM, counselor board: "The Board has no corresponding complaint with which to link this email and document. Please file a complaint via the Board's portal." |
| 5/7/2026, 11:46 AM | U.S. HHS Office for Civil Rights | "Complaint" naming "Long, Lorette M." and her license, with the expert review attached: "Lori Long violated at least 19 different Ohio Counselor, Social Worker, Marriage & Family Therapy Board laws and rules." | Sent | 5/8/26, 8:23 AM, form reply: "we cannot provide individual responses to questions received." |
Another family. In McGraw v. Long (Summit C.P. CV-2025-12-5725), another father sued her for negligence. On March 13, 2026 the court denied her motion to dismiss, holding that reporter immunity does not bar every claim at that stage. That case's claims are allegations.
14. What she did do
The record also shows this. Under oath in 2022 she said my sons "had no concerns" about me, and she expressed more concern about their father than about me. She said she would need to include me, and within weeks she let me into four sessions. In November 2022 she told my lawyer and me that she had no concerns, and unsupervised visits followed. Her notes say she told my lawyer she had "no bias" and wanted to "facilitate" my visits. The expert credits her advocacy for my sons. The counselor board found no violation, and OCR made no finding against her. Her lawyer explained the redactions under Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-09, and her records reached my lawyers by subpoena in 2025.
Her emails and letters to me, and mine to her
These are the messages between Lori Long, her office and her lawyer and me that bear on this page, from my Gmail. Times are Eastern. My sons' names are replaced with [my Older Son] and [my Younger Son].
| Date and time | From | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 11/22/2022, 10:49 PM | Lori Long | "I do not give 'updates' after every session as I do not have to do so. ... I am not [my Younger Son's] parent. St. Barnabas does not contact me when [he] has an accident." |
| 6/8/2023, 4:42 PM | Lori Long | Sends rules from a session with [my Older Son], "asking that both parents follow these rules." |
| 6/9/2023, 7:34 AM | Me | "How do I deal with my childrens right to phone calls with me being taken away. I've not gotten a single phone call ..." |
| 6/9/2023, 10:49 AM | Lori Long | "I do not think there is anything in writing that says the boys can not call if they want. I will check into this if you would like me to." |
| 7/21/2023, 1:18 PM | Lori Long | "Unfortunately I have nothing to do with custody or legal issues. ... Have you tried to ask [my ex-husband] through my family wizard?" |
| 9/28/2023 | Lori Long | Letter on her letterhead to "Summit Court ... To whom it may concern" about my sons and me (Section 8). |
| 10/3/2023, 7:04 PM | Me | "I'm curious if you actually verified this information ... to see if what you're alleging to the courts is based on facts." |
| 10/3/2023, 10:05 PM | Lori Long | "These issues were reported by [both boys]." |
| 3/9/2024, 12:38 PM | Me | "Please provide me with all of your notes regarding my sons since day one." |
| 3/12/2024, 2:44 PM | Lori Long | "I am not sure if you are aware but I am currently not seeing [my Younger Son]. ... as of right now I am only seeing [my Older Son]." |
| 10/16/2024, 9:29 PM | Me | "Please provide me access to all of my son's history with you and ongoing history going forward every week. You should have also gotten a subpoena by now." |
| 10/17/2024, 3:53 PM | Lori Long | "I can not do this as I have received a letter from [my ex-husband's] attorney stating they are going to file something to appeal this subpoena so I should not do anything at this time." |
| 12/6/2024, 3:10 PM | Lori Long | Attaches her Privacy Practices. "I can redact information if I think it will negatively impact the client-counselor relationship. ... I also am seeing the boys on a monthly basis now." |
| 12/6/2024, 3:58 PM | Lori Long | "I cannot get anything to you within 24 hours because I have to consult with my attorney." |
| 12/12/2024, 3:30 PM | Brandon M. Smith, her lawyer | "You are to immediately CEASE AND DESIST contacting Ms. Long. ... Any redactions made were pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code § 4757-5-09." |
| 12/12/2024, 4:13 PM | Brandon M. Smith, her lawyer | "Records have been redacted or withheld in accordance with law. Ms. Long will not be providing unredacted copies of the records. ... I will not engage in further debate about what the law means." |
| 12/17/2024, 3:22 PM | Brandon M. Smith, her lawyer | "Please immediately CEASE & DESIST from including Ms. Long on any correspondence. ... Ms. Long will not be providing unredacted copies of the records. ... She has no obligation to create type-written notes." |
Evidence timeline
- May 9, 2022Court order naming me my sons' custodian (shown to her at her deposition). Dep. pp. 15–17
- June 8, 2022Temporary custody to my ex-husband. Docket
- June 16, 2022Intake of my Older Son, arranged by my ex-husband. His claim ("fled to Florida for 38 days") is the presenting problem; she does not contact me. Intake; dep. pp. 9–12
- July 11, 2022He tells her I "did not want to do supervised visits." Dep. p. 26
- July 13, 2022My Younger Son begins. Dep. p. 11
- September 16, 2022My lawyer tells her my side and raises safety concerns: "I did not know any of this before." No assessment or report documented. Call sheet, per expert
- September 29, 2022Deposition: "I don't know mom"; father five calls, me one; my one note missing. Dep.; invoice 20797-22
- October 7, 2022My lawyer raises bias; her note says "I assured her I have no bias." Call sheet, per expert
- October 19, 2022First of my four sessions: "Mom here for reunification session." Note, per expert
- November 2, 2022"I don't have any concerns ... The kids are thriving here." My recording (A-1, A-2)
- November 8, 2022To my lawyer: "no worries for her spending time alone with them." Call sheet
- November 9, 2022"I'm happy to talk to the judge." My last session. My recording (A-3)
- November 14, 2022Unsupervised visits ordered for me. JE 11/14/22
- November 22, 2022"I do not give 'updates' after every session." Her email
- May 24, 2023To my ex-husband: she will ask the boys "what is being said to them at mom's house." Call sheet, per expert
- June 9, 2023My phone calls with my sons: "I will check into this." Her email
- July 21, 2023"I have nothing to do with custody or legal issues." Her email
- September 28, 2023Her letter to the court about my sons and me. Letter
- October 3, 2023Asked whether she verified it: "These issues were reported by [both boys]." Her email
- March 9 – 12, 2024I ask for all notes; she checks with my ex-husband's attorney; tells me she has stopped seeing my Younger Son. Emails; call sheet, per expert
- June 10, 2024"I am not moms counselor," in a note about the release I signed for my divorce coach. Call sheet, per expert
- July 15, 2024"I recommend supervised calls"; "feel free to say it was my recommendation." Call sheet, per expert
- July 17, 2024Decree: equal access to "all school, health, or agency records." Decree
- July 25, 2024Note: "mom telling them it is up to dad is a lie." Note, per expert
- October 17, 2024Refuses my request, citing a letter from my ex-husband's attorney. Her email
- November 13, 2024My subpoenas quashed on my ex-husband's motion. Order 11/13/24
- November 22, 2024My motion for contempt and removal of the therapist. The court never ruled on it. Docket
- November 25, 2024My grievance to the counselor board. Grievance letter
- December 3, 2024Counselor board opens INV-CO2024-14262. Board email
- December 6 – 17, 2024Redacted records; her lawyer: no unredacted copies. Emails
- December 12 – 30, 2024My written complaints to her and her lawyer, including a "FORMAL Notice of HIPAA Violations" (12/15) and a demand that she stop treating my sons (12/17). A civil complaint against her, drafted 12/12, has not yet been filed. My emails; draft
- February 27, 2025Note: "Mom is not being honest." Note, per expert
- June 4, 2025Complaints about her to the counselor board (CO2025-7392), OCR (No. 624860) and the Ohio Attorney General (9052632781); my final demand to her lists all three. Receipts; my email
- June 8, 2025My letter to her on her court letter: "hearsay, not clinical observations." My email
- June 4, 2025Her last progress note in my records. Progress note
- June 12 – 13, 2025Police reports. She closes my sons' case on June 13, removing herself as their counselor. CFPD; her email, 10/12/26
- July 18, 2025Subpoena response to my lawyers. Exhibit P
- By January 6, 2026Board: "no violation ... identified." Board email
- January 27 – 28, 2026My emailed complaints to the counselor board (told to use the portal) and to HHS OCR (No. 26-672493). My emails; replies
- April 7 – 8, 2026My email to the psychology board: "We don't license Lori Long"; counselor board: "no corresponding complaint." Replies
- May 7 – 8, 2026My complaint email to OCR naming her; OCR form reply. Emails
- March 13 – 17, 2026McGraw dismissal motion denied; expert review delivered. Order; report
- October 1, 2026OCR closes the HIPAA complaint with technical assistance. OCR letter
- October 12, 2026Her email to my lawyers: case closed 6/13/25. Stafford Cruz letter
What I believe was violated
Items marked "per expert" come from Dr. Blankenship's review of my sons' records. The counselor board closed my 2024 complaint without finding a violation.
| Rule or law | What the record shows | When | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-02(B)(5)–(6): get and follow the custody orders before treating | She relied on one parent's account and a single entry he supplied, and never saw the protection order she was told about. On being shown the May 9, 2022 order, she no longer believed I had fled. | 6/16/2022 on | Dep. pp. 4, 13–17 |
| 4757-5-09(B): accurate records | His claim written as the presenting problem with no source; "Kidnapped": "That's what I wrote down"; her note of our one conversation missing; birthdates blank; reported and observed information not distinguished. Her 2023 letter misdates my unsupervised visits (11/9/2023) and her own start date (6/14/2022). | 6/2022 – 2025 | Intake; dep. pp. 5, 9–10; letter; expert |
| R.C. 2151.421: mandated reporting | Safety concerns reported by my lawyer, with no documented assessment or action. | 9/16/2022 | Call sheet per expert |
| 4757-5-02(B)(1)–(2), (B)(10)–(11), (E)(1); 4757-5-03(A), (D): consent, who is the client, conflicting roles, ending services | No consent or role set for me in the 2022 "reunification" sessions; my part ended without notice or referral; in 2024 she asked me for a release while writing "I am not moms counselor." | 10/2022 – 6/2024 | Notes and call sheets per expert; her letter |
| 4757-6-01(A), (B), (F); 4757-5-02(A)(4), (B)(13): impartiality; no custody opinions; no recommendations about non-clients | A 2023 letter to the court about me, built on my ex-husband's reports and my sons' sessions, with no evaluation, written two months after "I have nothing to do with custody or legal issues." A 2024 "I recommend supervised calls" about my calls with my sons, with "feel free to say it was my recommendation." | 9/28/2023; 7/15/2024 | Letter; emails; call sheets per expert |
| 4757-6-01(A), (E); 4757-5-03(D)(3): neutrality and objectivity | 24 of 45 call sheets with my ex-husband and one with me; advice to him about his attorney and about me; notes recording her telling my sons "Mom is not being honest" and that what I told them was "a lie." | 2023 – 2025 | Call sheets and notes per expert |
| R.C. 3109.051(H); 4757-5-09(M); the 7/17/24 decree: equal parental access to records | Before the decree she checked with my ex-husband's attorney before releasing records. After it, she refused on 10/17/24 citing his attorney's letter, released only redacted copies, and her lawyer refused unredacted ones. | 3/11/2024 – 6/2025 | Call sheet per expert; emails 10/17/24, 12/6/24, 12/17/24 |
| 45 C.F.R. 164.524(a)(3), (d); 4757-5-09(K): limits on denying access, and how | Her stated reason was "negatively impact the client-counselor relationship," not "substantial harm." Her emails and her lawyer's (12/6, 12/12, 12/17/24) give no reason for any specific redaction, no right to review and no offer to send the records to a professional I choose, though her own Privacy Practices promise "a timely, written notice of the decision and reasoning for it." | 12/6/2024 on | Emails; her Privacy Practices |
| 4757-5-02(D)(1); 45 C.F.R. 164.502(a): confidentiality and releases | Per expert, call sheets record discussions of my sons with eight people without releases in the file, and her own attorney call sits in my sons' chart. OCR closed my complaint with technical assistance and no finding. | 2022 – 2025 | Expert; OCR letter 10/1/26 |
| 4757-5-09(L): billing | Per expert, 49 notes coded 90837 (individual) when more than one person took part. | 2022 – 2025 | Expert |
| 4757-5-02(A)(1)–(2), (A)(4): competence and scope | Per expert: thin intake, no diagnosis or measurable plan, no objective measures; reunification and animal-assisted work without documented training; at least four instances beyond her scope. | 2022 – 2025 | Expert |
What it cost: time, money, resources
| Item | Amount | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court reporter for her deposition, billed to my side's lawyer | $105.00 | 9/29/2022 | Invoice 20797-22 |
| Dr. David Blankenship, PhD, LPCC-S: forensic review of her counseling record for my sons (31.5 hours at $300), paid by me | $9,450.00 | 1/26 & 3/17/2026 | Invoice; his 3/17/2026 email with the final report |
| My unredacted sons' records, refused to me directly | — | 10/17/2024 on | Emails 10/17/24, 12/6/24, 12/17/24 |
| Total on this page | $9,555.00 | Also counted on the costs and time page |
The rules and laws, in their own words
- Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-02: competence, informed consent, court documents, confidentiality, termination
- Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-03: multiple relationships; clarifying who the client is
- Ohio Adm.Code 4757-5-09: records, client access (K), billing (L), parental access under R.C. 3109.051(H) (M)
- Ohio Adm.Code 4757-6-01: the counselor's role in court; no custody opinions by a treating therapist
- R.C. 2151.421: mandated reporting of suspected child abuse
- R.C. 3109.051(H): non-residential parent's access to records
- Rules of Superintendence 8.13–8.18 (formerly 91.04–91.08): custody evaluations and custody evaluator standards
- 45 C.F.R. 164.524: HIPAA right of access and grounds for denial
- Ohio Counselor, Social Worker and Marriage and Family Therapist Board
My sons' names, birthdates and addresses are left out. Nothing my sons said in therapy is reproduced, beyond short notes the expert quotes about what she told them about me. Full copies of every source are kept for counsel and the appropriate authorities.