What Ohio must change so this never happens to another child
The person who watched my visits with my sons was picked by the guardian ad litem, briefed by my ex-husband's lawyer before he had the court order, paid in cash, and free to quit by text. When he quit, my visits stopped. Ohio has no statewide standard for the people who supervise a parent's time with their children. These are the changes I am asking for.
Changes needed in Ohio law
- A statewide standard for visit supervisors. Ohio's Rules of Superintendence set training for guardians ad litem (12 hours before service, Sup.R. 8.04), qualifications and training for parenting coordinators (Sup.R. 6.44) and 40 hours of training for custody evaluators (Sup.R. 8.17(B)). I found no statewide rule for the person who supervises a parent's visits. Mr. Stutler testified that his training was a yearly Stark County overview, "It's not much," and that he had no written protocol beyond what he does for that court (dep. 10/14/22, pp. 8–10). California requires 24 hours of training before a professional provider supervises any visit (Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 5.20(f)), and the Supervised Visitation Network's standards require the same 24 hours (SVN Standards). Ohio should adopt a Superintendence rule for supervised parenting time that covers qualifications, at least 24 hours of training including domestic violence and child trauma, and a written protocol.
- Neutral, and briefed only by the court. Asked whether his role was to be a neutral third party, Mr. Stutler answered, "Not necessarily," and "I don't know that I'm a neutral" (p. 21). California's standard says providers keep neutrality "by refusing to discuss the merits of the case or agree with or support one party over another" (std. 5.20(i)). A supervisor should get the court order and nothing else from either side's lawyer, and anything a lawyer sends should be in writing and copied to both parents.
- Ground rules in writing before the first visit. He testified, "Actually I was negligent in setting up some of the ground rules," and that he set them after the second visit (p. 29). Both parents should get the rules in writing before visit one.
- Reports limited to what the supervisor saw. His report included something my ex-husband claimed I said, which Mr. Stutler did not hear, and part of his recommendation rested on it (pp. 50–52). A claim the supervisor did not witness should be labeled as such and should not be the basis for a recommendation.
- No case talk with either parent in front of the children. After the last visit he phoned my ex-husband, probably on speaker, while my sons were with their father, and did not stop him from talking about me (pp. 47–50).
- No quitting by text. He withdrew by text four days after the last visit, with no named successor (text, 9/28/22). I did not see my sons in person again until October 19. A supervisor who withdraws should have to notify the court and both parents and hand off to a named successor so that parenting time does not stop.
- Reports and records go to both parents. Visit reports should be filed and served on both parents, with written invoices instead of cash-only, receipt-on-request billing. Full communication logs should be produced on subpoena. At his deposition he had produced only my ex-husband's emails: "I can't find anything else right now" (pp. 59–60).
- Disclose prior working relationships. He testified that he had worked before with my ex-husband's lawyer and with the guardian ad litem who recommended him (p. 25). A supervisor should have to disclose that to both parents in writing.
What Senate Bill 174 should add
Senate Bill 174 of the 136th General Assembly rewrites Ohio custody law around 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. The bill does name visit supervisors. According to the Legislative Service Commission analysis of the version passed by the Senate, the court must "approve or designate a supervisor of parenting time," who "must adhere strictly to the terms ordered by the court and be willing and able to protect a child from harm," and the court must revoke that approval if the supervisor fails to protect the child or "is no longer willing or able" to do the job (R.C. 3109.0459). It says nothing about training, neutrality, reports or what happens when a supervisor quits.
- Add the standards above to R.C. 3109.0459: qualifications and training, neutrality, written ground rules, reports limited to what the supervisor saw and served on both parents, and disclosure of prior work with either side's lawyer or the guardian ad litem.
- Keep parenting time going when a supervisor leaves. When a supervisor withdraws or approval is revoked, the court should have to name a replacement or hold a hearing within 14 days, so that the parent and the children are not cut off while the paperwork catches up.
Scott M. Stutler supervised my court-ordered visits with my sons in my custody case, Summit County Domestic Relations Court, DR-2022-03-0667, from August 2 to September 28, 2022. Under oath he called my parenting "Child centered, very attentive, child focused." He also said "I don't know that I'm a neutral." Then he quit by text, and my visits stopped.
What happened
On August 2, 2022, the court let me see my sons at home with a private supervisor, Scott Stutler, whom the guardian ad litem, Brendon Kohrs, recommended. Before he ever met me, he had been told I kidnapped my sons. He testified that my ex-husband's lawyer, Lisa Carey Dean, called him before he had the court order and told him there were "concerns about flight," and that my ex-husband used the word "kidnapped." He charged $50 an hour, cash only. He swore to 14 visits; my texts and recordings show 11 visit dates between August 4 and September 24. He set no ground rules until after the second visit. He let the visits pause for 11 days on an email from my ex-husband's lawyer, and he refused a trip to a trampoline park on what he had been "advised." On August 20 he texted me, "the two visits this week went very well." After the last visit, on September 24, he phoned my ex-husband while my sons were with their father, and four days later he withdrew by text. He never mailed the $50 he said he owed me. I did not see my sons in person again until October 19. Under oath on October 14 he said I did "very well with the kids" and that I calmed my son at the last visit. Within three months, my ex-husband's affidavit said he had "expressed concern" about me. In February 2024, the next guardian ad litem's report recounted a phone call in which Mr. Stutler described me and the visits very differently from what he had sworn to.
Running totals of what my case cost are on the costs and time page.
This is the fifth page in a series about the professionals in my case, in the order they came into it. Each page says what went wrong and points to the dated document behind it. I am not a lawyer; where I name a rule or statute, I am saying what I believe it covers.
Who he is
Mr. Stutler is self-employed. He does "Supervised visits, divorce mediation, parent coordination." He is a retired U.S. probation and parole officer, "since 2017," and he said he had done supervised visits for about 25 years. He has a bachelor's in social work and a master's in counseling, and holds an LSW: "I do not have an independent license." His counseling clients were adults, "Mostly criminals." He has no office (dep. 10/14/22, pp. 4–17). The August 2, 2022 pretrial order named him on the guardian ad litem's recommendation. All of the visits were at my home (pp. 25, 31).
Before August 4, 2022: told I kidnapped my sons
They told him I had kidnapped my sons, and he took it from them before he ever heard from me. "I accepted the case before I got a copy of the court orders," he testified (p. 8). Asked who called whom: "I believe she called me." Ms. Dean, he said, told him "there was a Civil Protection Order in effect and that there were concerns about flight because I believe that Mrs. [George] had taken the child or the children out of state" (p. 26). Asked whether my ex-husband had ever said I kidnapped the boys: "I believe he did." That was the word, "kidnapped"? "I believe so" (p. 56). The protection order he was told about protected me.
At our first visit he brought it up with me. Asked whether he told me the judge said I ran off with my kids: "I said there was a concern there was a flight, a flight risk, yeah." Then: "I don't know if I said that or not. Maybe" (pp. 33–34).
August 4 to 22, 2022: the first visits
He set the fee by text the night before the first visit: "Please have your fee of $50 per hour for a total of $100 payable at the beginning of the visit." The next morning: "the only method of payment I accept is cash. If you want a receipt for visits please advise" (texts, 8/3/22 6:08 PM; 8/4/22 7:25 AM).
Of the first visit he testified he had "No, none" concerns about me. My sons were "Very happy to see her," and my Younger Son "told her over and over and over how much he loved her" (pp. 34–35).
He set no ground rules until after the second visit, on August 7. "Actually I was negligent in setting up some of the ground rules ... I think I was kind of busy at the time, and I just kind of went forward a little bit too fast" (p. 29). He testified that at the second visit I said things "about the process and her ex that were inappropriate and really should not be discussed in front of the kids" (p. 36). I did tell him the truth on that visit, but I told him outside my sons' earshot, where they couldn't hear. I was trying to get his help with the mix-up, because I didn't understand how it could have happened. After a ground-rules call with my lawyers on August 9, he agreed that those issues did not come up again at later visits, and that I listened: "She did. Yes, she did" (p. 37).
That same day he stopped scheduling. "I was copied on an email from your husband's attorney indicating that until the order is filed and provided to all parties they are not willing to schedule any further visits." When I asked the next day: "Not sure. [My ex-husband] is going to discuss with his attorney and then let me know" (texts, 8/9/22 1:05 PM; 8/10/22 5:57 PM). My next visit was August 18, eleven days after the second.
On August 20 he wrote: "Also the two visits this week went very well. I know this is very difficult situation for you, you have Handled situations these last two visits appropriately. I appreciate you adjusting. Thank you!!" (text, 8/20/22 12:00 PM). When I asked to take my sons to a trampoline park, he answered: "I have been advised that pursuant to the court's order your visits can only be at your house" (text, 8/22/22 10:07 AM). Under oath he said he had thought visits could move around, "that's the purpose of having a nonagency, nonoffice kind of visit." Asked who told him they had to stay at my house: "I think Miss Dean did, I'm pretty sure Mr. Kohrs. I'm not sure who." Did he call the guardian ad litem to check? "No" (pp. 57–58).
Visits three to thirteen: "Very vanilla"
Asked about my parenting: "Very well, very well done, good, good parenting skills. Child centered, very attentive, child focused, she's all about the kids." When my sons argued, I "Tried to redirect the kids consistently," and "She made every attempt to calm the kids down, and generally it worked out really well." Of visits three through thirteen: "Very vanilla. Yeah, she did very well with the kids" (pp. 38–40).
September 24 and 28, 2022: the last visit, and a text
At the last visit, on Saturday, September 24, my sons fought over a box fort and my Younger Son got very upset. Asked whether it was anything I did: "No. She was trying to keep the two brothers from fighting over this box fort." Asked what I did: "she sat on the couch and she just held him and calmed him down" (pp. 42–44).
Afterward he phoned my ex-husband while my sons were with their father. Was he on speaker? "Probably was because I was driving." On my ex-husband's speaker? "I think so." My ex-husband then talked to him, in front of my sons, about FaceTime and about my Younger Son's class at school. "Did you shut him down? A. No, I did not." "Why not? A. Just didn't." He did not talk with me about it: "No, we did not talk further about that" (pp. 47–53).
His report included my ex-husband's claim that I had told one of my sons he would be coming to live with me soon. He agreed that he did not hear it, but he used it: "We have a parent that claims that mom said something during a visit." Apart from what my ex-husband told him, had he heard anything like that from me? "That is correct," he had not (pp. 50–52).
He named no therapeutic provider and offered no handoff. He testified that recommending what should happen after he leaves a case is something the "Court's not asked me to do," and that "the Summit County Court hasn't really defined that" (p. 24). The check never came. Any new supervisor needed a new court order, and until then I had no in-person visits (my texts with my lawyer, 10/5–10/6/22). I did not see my sons in person again until October 19, at their counselor's office.
October 14, 2022: his deposition
My lawyers, Darren DeHaven and Kimberly Valenti, deposed him in Akron on October 14, 2022, with Lisa Carey Dean there for my ex-husband (pp. 1–3). Besides what is quoted above:
- "I don't know that I'm a neutral," and "when you observe you make choices about what you do report and what you don't report" (pp. 21–23).
- Fourteen visits: "Were there 14 visits? A. Yes" (p. 29).
- On September 29, my sons' counselor had testified that she was told my Younger Son was hitting himself "the whole visit" and "mom was not able to soothe him." Mr. Stutler said his report "would reflect that I don't" agree. Was I able to soothe him? "Yes." He was not hitting himself the entire visit? "That is correct" (pp. 54–56).
- He had produced only my ex-husband's emails. "So you don't have any e-mails from Lisa Dean or anyone? A. I can't find anything else right now" (pp. 59–60).
The double standard
This is how I see it. It is ironic that everyone allowed my ex-husband to malign me in front of my sons, while he complained about me and asserted that I do what he does.
About the second visit, on August 7, 2022, Mr. Stutler testified that I said things "about the process and her ex that were inappropriate and really should not be discussed in front of the kids" (36:7–13). He agreed it is important not to discuss anything divorce-related in front of the children at any time: "Correct, yes" (36:14–17). Two days later he had a ground-rules call with my lawyers about it (37:4–10). My answer about that visit is above.
On September 24, 2022, after the last visit, he phoned my ex-husband, probably on speaker, while my sons were with their father. My ex-husband talked to him about FaceTime and about my Younger Son's class, in front of my sons. "Did you shut him down? A. No, I did not." "Why not? A. Just didn't" (47:16–50:5). When I was accused of talking about the case in front of my sons, it led to ground rules and a call with my lawyers. When my ex-husband did it, the supervisor "Just didn't" stop him. Three months later, my ex-husband's affidavit told the court that Mr. Stutler had "expressed concern about Defendant's comments and actions in the presence of the minor children" (affidavit, 12/29/22, ¶ 18).
I believe this reflects a double standard in the Summit County court, one that is supportive of abusers.
How his withdrawal was used
- September 29, 2022. My sons' counselor, Lori Long, testified that she had gotten a call that day from the guardian ad litem saying my Younger Son was hitting himself "the whole visit" and that "mom was not able to soothe him," and that "Scott is no longer willing to do the visits at this time." She had never spoken with Mr. Stutler (Long dep. 9/29/22, as read at Stutler dep. pp. 54–55).
- October 17, 2022. My ex-husband's pretrial statement told the court my contact with my sons "began again in August with Scott Stutler providing the supervision at the home where she is residing, but there have been problems and the supervisor is no longer willing to provide this supervision" (pretrial statement, 10/17/22).
- December 29, 2022. My ex-husband's affidavit said Mr. Stutler "expressed concern about Defendant's comments and actions in the presence of the minor children during her parenting time, which included disparaging me and my family and stating that she couldn't wait to get back to court" (affidavit, 12/29/22, ¶ 18). Mr. Stutler's sworn testimony two months earlier was "Very vanilla," "she did very well with the kids."
- January 9, 2023. Ms. Dean's brief told the court that the "former parenting time supervisor, Scott Stutler, notified counsel and the court of [my Younger Son]'s behavioral issues" (response in opposition, 1/9/23).
February 6, 2024: what the next guardian ad litem wrote about him
Sixteen months after Mr. Stutler's deposition, the second guardian ad litem, James Phillips, filed an update to his report. In it he wrote that he had a short phone call with Mr. Stutler, and he wrote down what Mr. Stutler supposedly told him. He gave no date for the call. This is my summary of what the GAL wrote, next to what Mr. Stutler swore to under oath on October 14, 2022. To me, it shows the stark difference between the GAL's false reporting and the facts.
| What the GAL wrote in February 2024 | What Mr. Stutler swore to on 10/14/22 |
|---|---|
| That Mr. Stutler described the situation during his visits as toxic. | First visit, any concerns about me: "No, none" (34:2–4). The boys were "Very happy to see her" (34:11–12). Visits three through thirteen: "Very vanilla. Yeah, she did very well with the kids" (40:2–7). My sons' arguing was "Normal stuff" and "nothing abnormal" (39:1–6). |
| That Mr. Stutler called me very intense and suggested I might have trouble regulating my emotions. | "Very well, very well done, good, good parenting skills. Child centered, very attentive, child focused, she's all about the kids" (38:14–20). "She made every attempt to calm the kids down, and generally it worked out really well" (39:14–18). Nowhere in his testimony did he call me intense or say anything about my emotional regulation. |
| That I started making negative comments about my ex-husband at the visits. | He named the second visit only (36:7–13), before he had set any ground rules (36:25–37:3). After the August 9 ground-rules call, those issues did not come up again: "That is correct" (37:11–14). Did I listen? "She did. Yes, she did" (37:15–17). The one later comment in his report was my ex-husband's claim, which Mr. Stutler did not hear (50:22–24); apart from my ex-husband's claim, he had not heard anything like it (52:13–16). |
| Remarks about my Younger Son. | I will not repeat them here. Under oath he said only that my son was "significantly distressed for whatever reason" (51:20–22). |
| That Mr. Stutler stopped the visits after my Younger Son got upset at the last visit. | Was it anything I did? "No. She was trying to keep the two brothers from fighting over this box fort" (42:18–21). "she just held him and calmed him down" (44:7–8). Was I able to soothe him? "Yes" (55:24–25). Not the entire visit: "That is correct" (56:1–3). |
| That Mr. Stutler considered the visits harmful to my sons at the time. | His 9/28/22 text said my family "would be better served at this time with therapeutic supervised visits." Under oath he said the recommendation "wasn't based solely off of" my ex-husband's claim, and that "a counselor observing the visits ... would be beneficial" (51:17–52:6). Nowhere in his testimony did he call the visits harmful or detrimental. |
The deposition was taken under oath, with my lawyers and my ex-husband's lawyer in the room. The phone call was not.
Every text that matters, in order
These are from my text thread with him, August 2 to September 28, 2022. I never emailed him, and I never filed a complaint about him. I do not have his written visit reports.
| Date and time | From | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 8/2/22, 12:54 PM | Him | "I will be in touch soon regarding scheduling" |
| 8/3/22, 6:08 PM | Him | "Please have your fee of $50 per hour for a total of $100 payable at the beginning of the visit. Also please have the correct change." |
| 8/4/22, 7:25 AM | Him | "I forgot to mention the only method of payment I accept is cash. If you want a receipt for visits please advise." |
| 8/5/22, 8:17 AM | Him | "Could you forward your attorney's contact information and your court case number. This request is to place in my reports to the court. Also, for further visits, please remain inside your home at all times during the exchanges." |
| 8/7/22, 5:55 PM | Him | "I had no idea you guys are required to split the costs. ... Do you have a copy of the order? This is one of the reasons why I ask for a copy of the order." |
| 8/9/22, 1:05 PM | Him | "I was copied on an email from your husband's attorney indicating that until the order is filed and provided to all parties they are not willing to schedule any further visits." |
| 8/10/22, 5:57 PM | Him | "Not sure. [My ex-husband] is going to discuss with his attorney and then let me know." |
| 8/20/22, 11:56 AM | Him | "I had [my ex-husband] pay for both this visit and last visit ... moving forward you will only pay your half, $50 per visit." |
| 8/20/22, 12:00 PM | Him | "Also the two visits this week went very well. I know this is very difficult situation for you, you have Handled situations these last two visits appropriately. I appreciate you adjusting. Thank you!!" |
| 8/22/22, 10:07 AM | Him | "I have been advised that pursuant to the court's order your visits can only be at your house." |
| 8/25/22, 8:46 AM | Him | "I am just relaying this messsge. ... I normally do not relay messsges but since school is in session and reportedly the chrome book is essential I agreed to relay the messsge." |
| 8/25/22, 2:52 PM | Him | "You paid the entire amount the first two visits, [my ex-husband] paid the entire costs of the last two visits. Today and all future visits each of you will owe $50.00 per visit." |
| 8/31/22, 10:25–10:27 AM | Me, then him | Me: "will brendan be there? He was supposed to come last Tuesday" Him: "Not sure about Brendan." |
| 9/14/22, 5:31 PM | Him | My ex-husband wanted to move that Saturday's visit for a soccer game: "Would you be willing to reschedule to Saturday at 5:30 pm until 7:30 pm?" The visit stayed in the morning; my recording of it starts at 8:21 AM on 9/17. |
| 9/28/22, 10:37 AM | Him | "At this time I am withdrawing my services. I owe you $ 50.00 as you paid ahead. I will mail you a check to satisfy this obligation." |
What he did do
To be fair, the record also shows this. He told me on August 20 that the visits "went very well." Under oath he described my parenting as "Child centered, very attentive, child focused," said visits three through thirteen were "Very vanilla," and said I calmed my son at the last visit. He disagreed with the counselor's account of that visit. He confirmed that my ex-husband used the word "kidnapped" with him. He relayed my ex-husband's message about a school laptop only after saying I need not respond.
What it cost: time and money
He took cash only, so there is no bank record. These amounts are my estimate from his own texts.
| Item | Amount | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| His rate: $50 an hour, $100 per two-hour visit, cash only | $50/hr | 8/3 – 8/4/2022 | His texts |
| Visits one and two, which I paid in full | $200 | 8/4 and 8/7/2022 | His text, 8/25/22 |
| My half from August 25 on, $50 a visit: 10 visits by his sworn count of 14 (7 by the dates in my records, $350) | $500 (est.) | 8/25 – 9/24/2022 | His texts 8/20 and 8/25/22; dep. p. 29 |
| Paid ahead; the check he promised never came | $50 | 9/28/2022 | His text, 9/28/22 |
| Estimated total cash I paid him (about $600 by the dates in my records) | $750 (est.) | 8/4 – 9/28/2022 | As above |
| Days with no in-person time with my sons after he quit | 25 days | 9/24 – 10/19/2022 | His text 9/28/22; my texts with my lawyer 10/5–10/6/22 |
The rules and laws, in their own words
- Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio: Sup.R. 6.44 (parenting coordinator qualifications and training), 8.04 (guardian ad litem pre-service education), 8.17 (custody evaluator training). None covers visit supervisors.
- S.B. 174, Legislative Service Commission analysis (as passed by the Senate): "Supervision of parenting time or companionship or visitation," proposed R.C. 3109.0459
- California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 5.20: uniform standards for supervised visitation providers, including 24 hours of training and neutrality
- Supervised Visitation Network, Standards for Supervised Visitation Practice
Children's names, birthdates, schools and addresses are left out of every quote. Names inside quotes are replaced in brackets. My full recordings of the visits are kept for counsel and the appropriate authorities.