What Ohio must change so this never happens to another child
Ohio law already says a parent who is not the residential parent gets the same school records and the same school activities as the other parent, unless a court orders otherwise. No court ever ordered otherwise for me. St. Barnabas still took my ex-husband's word for what my custody papers meant, held meetings about my Younger Son without me, told me there were no behavior records while it was meeting about his behavior, and dropped me from its emails. These are the changes I am asking for.
What the law says now
- R.C. 3109.051(H): records. A parent who is not the residential parent "is entitled to access, under the same terms and conditions under which access is provided to the residential parent, to any record that is related to the child," unless the court finds that would not be in the child's best interest. "Record" includes "Records maintained by public and nonpublic schools." A records keeper who knowingly fails to comply "is in contempt of court."
- R.C. 3109.051(J): school activities. The same equal access applies to "any student activity," and it binds "all school officials and employees" and "the governing body of the chartered nonpublic school." Knowing non-compliance is contempt.
- R.C. 3319.321(B)(5)(a): public schools. A parent who is not the residential parent, "upon request, shall be permitted access to any records or information concerning the student under the same terms and conditions" as the residential parent. That section is written for public schools; I name it because my sons now attend one.
- FERPA, 34 CFR 99.4. For schools that receive U.S. Department of Education funds, the school must give full rights to either parent unless it has a court order, statute or legally binding document that specifically revokes them. Most private schools are not covered, so I treat this as the standard a school should meet, not a claim that St. Barnabas broke it.
The order I was living under in 2022, dated June 8, 2022, limited my parenting time. I found nothing in it that limited my access to school records or school activities.
Changes needed
- Schools must follow the actual court order, not one parent's word. "Residential parent" or "legal custodian" must never be read as "only parent." A school should read the order itself, and unless the order specifically limits records or activities, keep both parents on every contact list, email list and meeting invitation.
- Both parents are invited to every placement and withdrawal meeting. If one parent is left out, the school must state in writing which order says so.
- Every parent's call, voicemail and request is logged and answered in writing. Homework a parent asks for is sent to that parent, not left in the front office.
- Before calling police about an absence, check the school's own messages and both parents.
- Subpoena replies include every communication asked for, or a list of what was withheld and why.
- A written policy for every Catholic school and parish program in the Diocese of Cleveland on separated and divorced parents that matches R.C. 3109.051(H) and (J).
- Enforcement a parent can use. Contempt under R.C. 3109.051 means going back to court and paying a lawyer. The State Board of Education, for chartered nonpublic schools, should take written complaints about records and activity access and answer them.
What Senate Bill 174 should add
Senate Bill 174 of the 136th General Assembly passed the Senate on November 12, 2025, and is in the House Judiciary Committee. It is not law yet. According to the Legislative Service Commission analysis, it "recodifies but mostly maintains current law regarding access to a child's records and student activities," removes the distinction between residential and nonresidential parents, and extends access to legal custodians (proposed R.C. 3109.0516 to 3109.0527). That is a good change. It should also require a school to send a parent who is not on its lists the same notices as the other parent once that parent gives the school the order, and to answer that parent's written requests within a set number of days.
St. Barnabas School is the Catholic school my sons attended while my custody case, Summit County Domestic Relations Court, DR-2022-03-0667, went on. Its principal, Erin K. Faetanini, left me a voicemail in May 2022 about my request for my Older Son's homework. Seven months later, under oath, she said, "I was provided no explanation."
What happened
I filed for a protection order on May 6, 2022; the court had closed after I filed it, so it was stamped May 9. In May 2022, on my attorney Kimberly Valenti's advice, I took my Older Son out of school and asked for his homework. The principal called me back and left a voicemail about my request for "homework through the end of the school year." I called back; nobody answered, and I left voicemails. The homework was gathered and then, in her words, "sat in our front office until the beginning of August." From the summer of 2022 on, the school dealt only with my ex-husband. On July 22, 2022 she told me to contact him "since he is the legal custodian." On September 30 she wrote that there were no "behavior records on file," although staff had already met about my Younger Son's placement "from a behavioral standpoint." She held that meeting, and another in November about moving my Younger Son to another school, without me. On December 20, 2022, asked why the school had not given me information about my sons, she answered, "I don't have a good answer for that, I guess." In November 2023 she told me parents could not have lunch with their children. In 2022 and again by March 2025 I was off the school's email lists. In July 2025 the school answered my attorneys' subpoena for its communications with records only, and no communications.
Running totals of what my case cost are on the costs and time page.
This is the sixth page in a series about the professionals and institutions in my case. 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 they are
St. Barnabas School is a Catholic parish school in Summit County. Erin K. Faetanini was its principal; at her deposition on December 20, 2022 she said she was in her sixth year (dep. 10:18). Others named in her testimony are my Older Son's teacher, Shannon Larsen, who gathered his homework (44:22–45:2), and the intervention specialist Lauren Aubry and the school counselor Lauren Taylor, who were part of the meetings about my Younger Son (29:8–15). My attorneys Darren DeHaven and Kimberly Valenti questioned her. When my sons enrolled in 2021, the school had my email and phone number, and I got class and principal emails through at least July 2022.
May 2022: the voicemail
This is the principal's whole message. No child is named in it.
"Hi, Carey. This is Erin Faetanini, the principal at St. Barnabas School. I have a message here that you were requesting homework through the end of the school year, and just wanted to discuss that a little bit, what's going on, and why you indicated that there was a change in plans. So that's not something we typically do, and just wanted to discuss that. If you could return the call here at school, 330-467-7921. Thank you."
I called back. Nobody answered, and I left voicemails.
The voicemail has no date on it. I filed for the protection order on May 6, 2022, and because the court had closed after I filed it, the order was stamped May 9, 2022. The teacher testified that a call to the office excused my Older Son on May 9 and that on May 11 the office told her he would not be returning (order of 6/8/22, p. 6), so the message most likely came between May 9 and May 11, 2022.
Here is what she said under oath on December 20, 2022, set against her own voicemail:
| Her voicemail, May 2022 | Her sworn testimony, 12/20/22 |
|---|---|
| "I have a message here that you were requesting homework through the end of the school year." | Why wasn't my Older Son coming back? "I was provided no explanation." (17:21–23) |
| She had my message and my number, and she called me back. | "the boys left and then we didn't hear from anyone, and they hadn't been reported off from school, that they weren't coming back in, we tried to reach out and didn't get ahold of anyone. So I had asked our police officer here to follow up and make sure that the children were okay." (18:10–17) |
| She was calling about my request for his homework. | "a police officer came and asked for information and followed up." What was she told? "I don't recall." (19:5–17) |
| I asked for his homework so he could keep doing his work at home. | The homework "sat in our front office until the beginning of August when we came back to school." (45:3–6) "That's correct. No one picked it up." (48:7–9) |
Later in the same deposition she agreed that I had called the school to get the work my son would miss. Q. "Did Carey Ann call the school, that you're aware of, at the end of May last year to get any work that might be related to [my Older Son] that he would be missing while he was out?" A. "Yes." (24:24–25:3) She also said she did not know at the time that I had a protection order covering both boys (20:16–20).
July to December 2022: my ex-husband's word became the school's rule
Over the summer of 2022 my ex-husband told the school "that he had the court documents that he was given custodial parental rights" (11:24–12:3). After that, the school dealt with him alone.
- July 22, 2022. When tuition was taken from my account without my authorization and I asked for it back, she wrote: "You will need to contact [my ex-husband] regarding enrollment and tuition since he is the legal custodian." (email, 7/22/22) The tuition was later refunded by check.
- Before September 22, 2022. She set a meeting about my Younger Son's placement and contacted only my ex-husband. "And you would agree that you did not contact Carey Ann?" "That is correct." Why? "it was my understanding that dad was the person making academic decisions for the child, and he was the only person that I had had any contact with." (30:16–31:10)
- Mid-November 2022. She called a second meeting, about moving my Younger Son to another school. She invited my ex-husband, staff and the guardian ad litem (33:1–13; 34:10–11). "And you didn't feel it was necessary to include mother in that meeting?" "Again, I thought that dad had the educational interests of the children, that was my understanding of the legal documents, and so I did not include -- I included him only." (14:5–18) My attorney learned of the move at the deposition: "we just learned that this school is trying to move one of the children to another school" (7:1–3).
- November 28, 2022. "The school has been communicating with [my ex-husband] related to [my Younger Son]'s classroom progress and behaviors, as he is named the legal custodian and residential parent of the children." (email, 11/28/22)
Under oath she agreed that no one had told her there was an order keeping the school from giving me information. Q. "Did anyone ever tell you there was an order from the court preventing St. Barnabas from disclosing or revealing information about [my sons] to their mother?" A. "No." (13:4–9) Asked whether being the residential parent meant the other parent had no right to information: "No." (12:9–13) Then: "Why wasn't information and documents pertaining to [my sons] conveyed to Carey Ann ... before today?" "I don't have a good answer for that, I guess." (13:10–15)
September 30, 2022: "no ... behavior records"
On September 29, 2022 I asked in writing for "any and all records including but not limited to academic, sports, curricular and behavioral." The next day she answered: "Currently, there are no extra curricular schedules or behavior records on file for either of the boys" (emails, 9/29 and 9/30/22). By then, staff had already met about whether my Younger Son was ready "from a behavioral standpoint" for his grade. "That is correct." (28:22–29:22) Two months later she wrote that the school had been communicating with my ex-husband about his "classroom progress and behaviors." On November 8, 2022 I asked for both boys' report cards; she sent one (emails, 11/8 and 11/9/22). On November 20 I wrote to her: "I have reached out to you. I shouldn't have to. Information about my children should be given to me by you notifying me what's happening with my children." (email, 11/20/22)
Under oath, she said of me, "she's reached out a couple of times, and I've responded to every one" (13:23–24), and "the first contact was about the payment in July ... And then the next contact was in November" (45:16–46:2). That leaves out my September 29 records request.
Dropped from the school's emails, in 2022 and again by 2025
At the deposition my attorney put it to her: "She doesn't get e-mails from classrooms, she doesn't get information about [my Younger Son]." "No, it's coming to light today, yes." (13:25–14:4) She said she did not tell anyone to leave my email address out (15:20–23). On March 6, 2025 I wrote to the school office: "Can I ask why I'm no longer on the blazer blast or any other Barnabas emails and can you please add me back to my son's school event notifications?" I found no reply.
At the end of the December 20, 2022 deposition, the lawyers discussed an agreed entry so that I would get all of the school's communications about my sons. It was never filed; no record of it exists.
November 29, 2023: no lunch visits
On August 18, 2023 I sent her the current order and wrote, "Nowhere in this order does it state I need supervision with my sons." She answered, "received. Thank you." (emails, 8/18/23) On November 29, 2023 she wrote: "We do not allow parents to visit/eat with students during their lunch at St. Barnabas. Parents are welcome and encouraged to help out when volunteers are requested." (email, 11/29/23)
July 2025: a subpoena reply with no communications
On July 7, 2025 my attorneys subpoenaed the school's complete file on my sons, including "communications, emails, correspondences ... text messages, and/or memoranda." The school's reply of July 17, 2025 is 26 pages of enrollment forms, report cards and attendance records. It has no emails or other communications, although the principal said under oath in 2022 that she had my emails and a copy of my ex-husband's email about my Younger Son (37:5–9; 45:25–46:2), and I have her emails to me.
What the teacher, the coach and the pre-K teacher said under oath
Three more people from St. Barnabas and its parish gave sworn testimony in my case: my Older Son's teacher, the volunteer coach of the parish track team, and my Younger Son's teacher. Their words show the school taking my ex-husband's word and leaving me out, and some of what they said contradicts the principal.
My Older Son's teacher, Shannon T. Larsen
On May 20, 2022, at the protection-order and custody hearing, Mrs. Larsen testified for my ex-husband's side. Asked who her "primary contact" was, she said my ex-husband "has been the one that has usually sent e-mails," and that my son "tells me that grandma and dad help him" with homework (hearing 5/20/22, 90:11–91:3). The June 8, 2022 order turned that into "Husband is the school's primary contact" and repeated the homework claim (order p. 6). Six months later, at her deposition on November 11, 2022, she said she had never asked my son who helped him: "I guess I'm basing it off of the fact that's who picked him up at the end of the day so I assumed that's who he was with so that was who was helping him with his homework" (dep. 23:9–21). She said I was on the class list and that anything about my son "would go out to both" of us (25:25–27:4), and that when my ex-husband emailed her directly, "those e-mails I just replied back to him" (26:17–24).
| What she told the court, 5/20/22 | What she said under oath, 11/11/22 |
|---|---|
| "He tells me that grandma and dad help him." (90:13–14) | "I assumed that's who he was with so that was who was helping him with his homework." (23:14–17) She never asked him (23:18–21). |
| My ex-husband "has been the one that has usually sent e-mails." (90:23–25) | "If it was anything pertaining it would go out to both." (27:3–4) |
| "I know there was a phone call on Monday, the 9th, to the office, so that was an excused absence day." (91:24–92:1) | Was any take-home work made available to him? "No. It could have been, but ... If someone would have asked for it I could have made it available." (33:6–12) |
I had asked. The principal's own voicemail says so: "you were requesting homework through the end of the school year." Mrs. Larsen also testified that before the hearing my ex-husband emailed her that she might be subpoenaed. She then spoke with his attorney, on the advice of "the attorney at the diocese," and told her my son had not been in school (hearing 98:7–100:24). My ex-husband told her I "had the boys" and he "didn't know where they were." He never told her that a protection order covered me and both boys (dep. 29:17–30:20).
The volunteer head coach of the parish CYO track team, Matt Zamecnik
Mr. Zamecnik is the volunteer head coach of the St. Barnabas parish CYO track team. My ex-husband was his volunteer assistant, "pretty much my right-hand man" (hearing 5/20/22, 103:19–104:6). He told the court he had never met me (102:19–103:5) and that I was never at practices or meets (107:16–24). My ex-husband called him before the hearing to give him "a heads-up" about the subpoena, as "a material witness in terms of what I felt, you know, how he's perceived with the kids" (117:19–118:21). The June 8, 2022 order says the coach "independently verified" that my son had not been in school (order p. 8). Asked whether the school told him or he saw it himself, the coach answered: "he had mentioned it in our -- you know, when we had spoken" (hearing 119:10–15). What he could see for himself was who came to track practice.
| What the 6/8/22 order says | What the coach said under oath, 5/20/22 |
|---|---|
| My ex-husband told the coach my son had not been in school, "which Mr. [Zamecnik] independently verified." (order p. 8) | Did the school tell him, or did he see it himself? "he had mentioned it in our -- you know, when we had spoken." (119:10–15) |
| The coach was offered as a witness to how my ex-husband is with the children. | He had never met me (102:19–103:5), and my ex-husband had called him ahead of time about the subpoena (117:19–25). |
My Younger Son's teacher, Mary K. Freilino
Mrs. Freilino teaches pre-K at St. Barnabas and is also its admissions coordinator (dep. 12/20/22, 5:15–18). At her deposition on December 20, 2022, she said I was not on ClassDojo, the app she uses to talk with parents. Why not? "I don't know. I was never asked." (21:10–14) She held a conference about my son with my ex-husband only: "I was only to have contact with dad." Who told her that? "From Mrs. Faetanini." (23:21–24:10) The principal told her "Just that dad had custody" (28:17–24). The school sent my ex-husband my son's behavior plans, and she emailed him separately (23:13–24:23). It sent me nothing. She also said my son was "doing very well academically" (19:22–20:4).
| The principal, 12/20/22 | Her own teacher, the same day |
|---|---|
| She never told anyone to leave me off the school's email lists. (15:20–23) | "I was only to have contact with dad." Who said so? "From Mrs. Faetanini." (24:4–10) |
| I "never reached out" the way other parents would. (13:14–19) | I was not on ClassDojo: "I was never asked." (21:12–14) |
The meeting I wasn't told about
On Thursday, November 17, 2022, St. Barnabas held a conference about moving my Younger Son out of the school. I was not invited. The next morning, November 18, my ex-husband emailed the principal, Mrs. Freilino, the school counselor Lauren Taylor and the intervention specialist Lauren Aubry, with a copy to the children's counselor, Lori Long: "After 24 hours of digesting the discussion that took place at yesterday's conference I would like to request that we wait until the end of the second quarter (ie after Christmas break) to transition [my Younger Son] to a new school." Two days later, on November 20, I emailed the principal asking for "a reply from you as to what is going on with both of my children at school." The next afternoon, November 21, Mrs. Aubry emailed my ex-husband an updated behavior plan and copied the principal and Mrs. Freilino. On December 8 she sent him another, again copying the principal. Neither was sent to me. These emails came out of the school's own files at the December 20, 2022 depositions (12/20/22 deposition exhibits).
| What the school said | What the emails show |
|---|---|
| Mrs. Freilino: I wasn't on ClassDojo because "I don't know. I was never asked." (dep. 21:10–14) | September 22, 2022, her first day with my son, to my ex-husband only: "I sent you an invite to our Class Dojo. This is my main means of communication with parents." (12/20/22 deposition exhibits) |
| The principal, asked why I got no information from classrooms: "No, it's coming to light today, yes." (14:1–4) | She was copied on the behavior-plan emails sent only to my ex-husband on November 21 and December 8, 2022. (12/20/22 deposition exhibits) |
| The principal, about the meeting on moving my Younger Son: she called it, and "I included him only." (14:5–18) | The conference was on November 17, 2022. My ex-husband's email the next morning went to the principal, Mrs. Freilino, Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Aubry. I was not on it. (12/20/22 deposition exhibits) |
| Mrs. Larsen, 11/11/22: "So you have no way of knowing whether or not it was Carey Ann [George] dropping off [my Older Son]?" "No, I do not." (dep. 20:22–25) | June 20, 2022, my email to her: "Can you tell me who was out at the drop-off line every day? There were two people in particular that saw me dropping off [my Older Son] with [my Younger Son] in the car every day and I need their assistance in getting my children back." (email, 6/20/22, 6:54 AM) I found no reply. |
| November 28, 2022, the principal to me: the school "has been communicating with [my ex-husband] ... as he is named the legal custodian and residential parent." | No court order limited what St. Barnabas could share with me, and the principal admitted no one told her of one. (13:4–9) |
It was on December 20, 2022, at the deposition of the school counselor, Lauren Taylor, that I learned my Younger Son was being withdrawn from St. Barnabas the next day. No one at the school had told me (emergency motion, 12/23/22).
The principal's sworn words against her own staff and the records
| Principal Faetanini, deposition 12/20/22 | Her own staff, or the record |
|---|---|
| "I was provided no explanation" (17:21–23); "we didn't hear from anyone ... we tried to reach out and didn't get ahold of anyone" (18:10–17). | Mrs. Larsen: a call to the office on May 9 (excused), and on May 11 the office told her he "wouldn't be returning" (hearing 91:24–92:11). The principal's own voicemail: "you were requesting homework through the end of the school year." |
| The work was gathered by Mrs. Larsen (44:22–45:2) and "sat in our front office until the beginning of August" (45:3–6). | Mrs. Larsen: no take-home work was made available; "If someone would have asked for it I could have made it available." (dep. 33:6–12) |
| She did not know at the time that I had a protection order covering both boys. (20:16–20) | Mrs. Larsen: the office told her the protection-order paperwork arrived "either the 9th or the 10th" (hearing 96:13–97:10), and the principal told her my ex-husband "was not allowed to be on the property or by the boys" (dep. 31:4–9). |
| Was she talking to my ex-husband then? "No," then "Yes, he did ... We did." (20:21–21:5) | Mrs. Larsen: the principal told her he "was there Monday morning," May 9, 2022. (hearing 97:16–22) |
| She never told anyone to leave me off the email lists. (15:20–23) | Mrs. Freilino: "I was only to have contact with dad ... From Mrs. Faetanini." (24:4–10) |
| "the first contact was about the payment in July ... And then the next contact was in November." (45:16–46:2) | My May 2022 call about his homework, and my written records request of September 29, 2022. |
| Records about my sons went to my ex-husband; I was told on 9/30/22 there were "no ... behavior records on file." | Mrs. Freilino: the intervention specialist sent him the behavior plans (23:13–20), and she emailed him separately (24:14–23). |
| Why didn't I get classroom emails or information? "No, it's coming to light today, yes." (14:1–4) | She was copied on behavior-plan emails sent only to my ex-husband on November 21 and December 8, 2022. (12/20/22 deposition exhibits) |
| A meeting "at the end of November" about transferring my Younger Son; she called it (14:5–12), "mid November" (33:4). | The conference was on November 17, 2022 (my ex-husband's email of November 18 about "yesterday's conference," sent to the principal, Mrs. Freilino, Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Aubry). I was not on the email or at the conference. (12/20/22 deposition exhibits) |
The laws I believe St. Barnabas broke
1. Ohio Revised Code 3109.051(H) and (J): equal access to records and school activities
The law. Unless a court orders otherwise, a parent who is not the residential parent "is entitled to access, under the same terms and conditions under which access is provided to the residential parent, to any record that is related to the child" (R.C. 3109.051(H)(1)). That includes "Records maintained by public and nonpublic schools." The same holds for "any student activity," and it binds "all school officials and employees" and the governing body of a chartered nonpublic school (R.C. 3109.051(J)). A records keeper or school official who knowingly fails to comply "is in contempt of court" ((H)(2), (J)(2)), and the court must assess costs and attorney's fees against a person found in contempt ((K)). The June 8, 2022 order made my ex-husband the temporary residential parent. Nothing in it limited my access to my sons' school records or activities.
What St. Barnabas did.
- 7/22/22: when I asked the principal to return a tuition charge I had not authorized, she replied, "You will need to contact [my ex-husband] regarding enrollment and tuition since he is the legal custodian."
- Before 9/22/22: staff met about my Younger Son's placement and did not include me (Faetanini dep. 28:22–31:10). On 9/30/22 the principal wrote to me that there were "no ... behavior records on file for either of the boys."
- 11/8–11/9/22: I asked for both boys' report cards and received one.
- 11/28/22: the principal wrote, "The school has been communicating with [my ex-husband] related to [my Younger Son]'s classroom progress and behaviors, as he is named the legal custodian and residential parent."
- 11/17/22: the school held a conference about moving my Younger Son to another school and did not invite me. My ex-husband's email the next morning about "yesterday's conference" went to the principal, his teacher, the school counselor and the intervention specialist (12/20/22 deposition exhibits). The principal's explanation: "I thought that dad had the educational interests of the children" (Faetanini dep. 14:5–18).
- 11/21/22 and 12/8/22: the intervention specialist emailed updated behavior plans to my ex-husband only, copying the principal (12/20/22 deposition exhibits). The first came the day after my 11/20/22 email asking "what is going on with both of my children at school."
- 9/22/22: my Younger Son's teacher emailed my ex-husband only: "I sent you an invite to our Class Dojo. This is my main means of communication with parents." (12/20/22 deposition exhibits)
- 12/20/22: the same teacher testified she was "only to have contact with dad ... From Mrs. Faetanini," that I was not on ClassDojo because "I was never asked," and that his behavior plans went to my ex-husband (Freilino dep. 21:10–14; 23:13–24:10).
- 3/6/25: I had been taken off the school's email lists: "Can I ask why I'm no longer on the blazer blast or any other Barnabas emails ...?" I found no reply.
- 7/17/25: the school answered my attorneys' subpoena for "communications, emails, correspondences" with none of the 2022 emails the principal said under oath she had.
What I believe. St. Barnabas gave my ex-husband everything and gave me as little as it could. No court ever told it to: the principal admitted no one told her of any order limiting what I could see (Faetanini dep. 13:4–9). Ohio law says a school that knowingly keeps records from the other parent is in contempt of court. Being the "residential parent" did not make my ex-husband the only parent. Each time I asked, I was told to go through the man I had a protection order against.
2. Ohio Revised Code 3319.321 and FERPA: the same rule in the education laws
The law. Ohio's student-records statute says a parent who is not the residential parent, "upon request, shall be permitted access to any records or information concerning the student under the same terms and conditions" as the residential parent (R.C. 3319.321(B)(5)(a)). That statute governs public schools. The federal privacy law, FERPA, says a school "shall give full rights under the Act to either parent, unless" it has "evidence that there is a court order, State statute, or legally binding document relating to such matters as divorce, separation, or custody that specifically revokes these rights" (34 CFR 99.4), and records must be provided within 45 days of a request (34 CFR 99.10(b)). FERPA covers schools that receive U.S. Department of Education program funds.
What St. Barnabas did. On 9/29/22 I asked in writing for "any and all records including but not limited to academic, sports, curricular and behavioral." The next day I was told there were no behavior records, while the school was sending behavior plans and updates to my ex-husband (email 11/28/22; Freilino dep. 23:13–20). Asked why information was not given to me, the principal said, "I don't have a good answer for that, I guess" (Faetanini dep. 13:10–15). She also testified that the school receives federal dollars "through Nordonia" (38:20–23).
What I believe. St. Barnabas is a private Catholic school, and these laws may not bind it the way they bind a public school. I am not claiming they do. I am showing that every education law I can find, Ohio and federal, starts from the same rule: both parents, unless a court says otherwise. No court did. Nordonia is a public district, and I will address its conduct on a later page.
3. A parent's right to direct her children's upbringing and education
The principle. The U.S. Supreme Court calls "the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children ... perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court" (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality)). It includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control" (quoting Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534–535 (1925)). Troxel adds that "there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children" (530 U.S. at 68).
What St. Barnabas did. In 2022 the school made decisions about my sons' education without me: the meeting about my Younger Son's placement (before 9/22/22), the conference about moving him to another school (11/17/22), and his withdrawal effective 12/21/22, which I learned of only at the counselor's deposition on 12/20/22. The principal said the school was "following what the parent requested" (Faetanini dep. 48:17–19).
What I believe. These constitutional protections limit the government, and a parish school is not the government. I am not saying the school violated the Constitution. I am saying that a parent's right to help direct her child's education is one of the oldest rights this country recognizes, that no court ever took it from me, and that St. Barnabas treated me as though one had. Even while my parenting time was supervised in 2022, no order limited my access to my sons' school or records. The school took my ex-husband's word for what my rights were instead of reading the order.
Emails and records, in order
| Date | From → To | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| May 2022 (most likely 5/9 – 5/11) | Principal → me (voicemail) | "I have a message here that you were requesting homework through the end of the school year" |
| 6/20/22 | Me → Mrs. Larsen | "Can you tell me who was out at the drop-off line every day? There were two people in particular that saw me dropping off [my Older Son] with [my Younger Son] in the car every day and I need their assistance in getting my children back." No reply found. |
| 7/22/22 | Principal → me | "You will need to contact [my ex-husband] regarding enrollment and tuition since he is the legal custodian." (The tuition was later refunded by check.) |
| 9/22/22 | Mrs. Freilino → my ex-husband only | "I sent you an invite to our Class Dojo. This is my main means of communication with parents." (12/20/22 deposition exhibit) |
| 9/29/22 | Me → principal | "Please forward me any and all information and schedules pertaining to my sons and any and all records including but not limited to academic, sports, curricular and behavioral." |
| 9/30/22 | Principal → me | "You can access the boy's academic records by logging into the FACTS student portal ... I am not responsible for athletic schedules; CYO is a parish entity. Currently, there are no extra curricular schedules or behavior records on file for either of the boys." |
| 11/8 – 11/9/22 | Me → principal; principal → me | I asked for both boys' report cards. She sent one. |
| 11/18/22 | My ex-husband → the principal, Mrs. Freilino, Mrs. Taylor, Mrs. Aubry; copy to Lori Long | "After 24 hours of digesting the discussion that took place at yesterday's conference I would like to request that we wait until the end of the second quarter ... to transition [my Younger Son] to a new school." I was not on it. (12/20/22 deposition exhibit) |
| 11/20/22 | Me → principal | "I have reached out to you. I shouldn't have to. Information about my children should be given to me by you notifying me what's happening with my children." |
| 11/21/22 | Mrs. Aubry → my ex-husband; copies to Mrs. Freilino and the principal | An updated behavior plan for my Younger Son. Not sent to me. (12/20/22 deposition exhibit) |
| 11/28/22 | Principal → me | "The school has been communicating with [my ex-husband] ... as he is named the legal custodian and residential parent of the children." "We will continue to follow the most current court orders." |
| 12/8/22 | Mrs. Aubry → my ex-husband; copies to the principal and Mrs. Freilino | Changes to the behavior plan: "Please let me know if you have any questions." Not sent to me. (12/20/22 deposition exhibit) |
| 12/20/22 | Deposition | "I don't have a good answer for that, I guess." (13:14–15) |
| 8/18/23 | Me → principal; principal → me | "Nowhere in this order does it state I need supervision with my sons." / "received. Thank you." |
| 11/29/23 | Principal → me | "We do not allow parents to visit/eat with students during their lunch at St. Barnabas." |
| 3/6/25 | Me → school office | "Can I ask why I'm no longer on the blazer blast or any other Barnabas emails ...?" No reply found. |
| 7/7/25 and 7/17/25 | My attorneys → school; school → my attorneys | Subpoena for the complete file, including communications. Reply: 26 pages of records, no communications. |
I never filed a complaint with the Diocese of Cleveland.
What the school did do
To be fair, the record also shows this. The principal called me back about the homework in May 2022. She answered my emails in 2022 and 2023, pointed me to the parent portal, and sent a report card when I asked. She testified that my Older Son was not penalized for the weeks he missed (20:3–15). Under oath she agreed that no order kept the school from informing me.
What it cost: time and money
The school's part in my costs is mostly lawyer time and lost time with my sons' school lives. I have not found an invoice that separates the school work from the rest.
| Item | Amount | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| My attorneys' time to depose the principal | Not broken out | 12/20/2022 | Deposition transcript |
| My attorneys' time on the school subpoena | Not broken out | 7/2025 | Subpoena and reply |
| My Older Son's end-of-year homework, asked for and never sent | 3 weeks of schoolwork | May – Aug 2022 | Voicemail; dep. 45:3–6 |
| School information about my sons that went only to my ex-husband | About 6 months | 7/2022 – 12/20/2022 | Emails; dep. 13:25–14:4 |
The laws, in their own words
- Ohio Revised Code 3109.051: divisions (H) (records, including those of nonpublic schools) and (J) (student activities)
- Ohio Revised Code 3319.321: division (B)(5)(a) (records access for a parent who is not the residential parent)
- 34 CFR 99.4: rights of parents under FERPA
- S.B. 174, Legislative Service Commission analysis (as passed by the Senate): "Records and student activity"
Children's names, birthdates and addresses are left out of every quote, and so are the details of my sons' school records. Names inside quotes are replaced in brackets.