When a Judge Talks to Your Child: In-Camera Interviews in Ohio Custody Cases

(What Fathers in Columbus, Athens & Southeastern Ohio Should Expect)

By Andrew Russ, Ohio Family Law Attorney

Educational overview only. This article is general information about Ohio custody procedure. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and is not a substitute for advice about a specific case.

Why this topic matters in real Ohio custody disputes

Few moments in a custody case feel more emotionally charged than the possibility that a judge will speak privately with your child. Fathers often imagine the interview as a “decision day,” a one-time conversation where a child gets to choose where to live.

Ohio law treats it differently.

R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) permits an in-chambers interview about the child’s wishes and concerns and requires one upon either party’s request in the allocation proceedings it covers. Parenting-time interviews under R.C. 3109.051(C) are discretionary. The applicable proceeding matters.

Sources checked October 18, 2026: R.C. 3109.04(B); R.C. 3109.051(C); Ferrell v. Ferrell, 2025-Ohio-5476. These sources address the stated issues; this is not an exhaustive subsequent-history certification.

That framework contains most of the tension around these interviews: the process is designed to let a child be heard, without turning the child into a witness in open court—and without making the child the “tie-breaker.”

What “in camera” means in Ohio custody cases

“In camera” means the judge interviews the child in chambers—outside the courtroom and away from public view. The process is often treated as a protective tool: it can reduce pressure on the child, keep the child out of adult conflict, and give the court a way to learn what the child is experiencing without a public spotlight.

The interview is typically structured to be age-appropriate and sensitive to the emotional burden a child can feel when adults are in conflict.

When Ohio courts consider an in-camera interview

In custody litigation, courts focus on the best interest of the child. The child’s wishes—if the child is interviewed—are one factor among many, not the only factor.

In-camera interviews can arise in domestic relations court and in juvenile court custody matters, depending on how the case is filed and what issues are before the court.

The interview may also come up in parenting-time disputes, where a court may consider a child’s wishes and concerns as part of scheduling and best-interest evaluation.

Who is (and is not) in the room

R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(c) excludes parents from the interview. It limits attendance to the child, the child’s attorney, the judge, necessary court personnel and, at the judge’s discretion, each parent’s attorney.

When an interview is conducted under R.C. 3109.04(B), the court may appoint a guardian ad litem and must do so upon either parent’s motion. Appointment and attendance are separate questions.

A key threshold issue: the child’s reasoning ability

A common misconception is that the judge simply asks the child, “Who do you want to live with?”

Under R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(b), the court must first assess reasoning ability. Insufficient ability prevents inquiry into wishes and concerns. With sufficient ability, the court must assess special circumstances; if inquiry would not serve the child’s best interest, it must journalize written findings explaining that determination.

This is part of why the interview can feel opaque: the judge may be evaluating capacity and vulnerability as much as preference.

What judges tend to explore in the interview

While every judge has a different style, the interview often sounds less like a vote and more like a conversation about lived experience.

Examples of topics that commonly arise include:

·        What a normal week looks like at each home

·        School routines, stability, and stressors

·        Transitions between households (what works and what doesn’t)

·        Who helps with homework, bedtime, and activities

·        Anything the child finds difficult to say around either parent

The goal is typically to understand the child’s perspective without placing the child in the role of a courtroom witness.

The confidentiality question: is the interview recorded, and who can access it?

This is one of the most confusing parts for parents because Ohio practice can vary by county and appellate district.

Recording and access require review of controlling appellate authority and court procedures. Ferrell v. Ferrell, 2025-Ohio-5476, paragraphs 32–37, discusses recording and sealed-review requirements, acknowledges differing appellate authority, and found the omission harmless on that case’s facts. It does not authorize treating an informal summary as an adequate substitute in every case.

Because practices differ, families often experience this as a “black box”: the court considers what it learned, but the details may not be publicly litigated in open court.

A critical rule Ohio parents often miss: “recorded statements of the child” are not the substitute

R.C. 3109.04(B)(3) prohibits obtaining or attempting to obtain a child’s written or recorded statement or affidavit about allocation wishes and concerns, and prohibits the court from accepting or considering such material for the specified allocation issues. This is a statutory prohibition, not merely judicial caution about coaching.

This restriction concerns the child’s allocation wishes and concerns; it is not a blanket rule excluding every recording involving a child. Other evidence raises separate admissibility and legal questions.

Common myths that make these cases harder on children (and why courts resist them)

Myth 1: “The child chooses in Ohio.”A child’s wishes are typically just one factor among many in the best-interest analysis.

Myth 2: “The interview is a popularity contest.”The interview is often designed to understand concerns and day-to-day experience, not to count votes.

Myth 3: “A parent can just bring the child to court to explain everything.”Courts usually try to avoid placing children in the middle of litigation and often prefer protected, in-chambers procedures.

Myth 4: “It’s best to document the child’s custody wishes at home.” R.C. 3109.04(B)(3) expressly prohibits the specified written or recorded preference statements.

How this fits alongside GALs, custody evaluations, and other “child-focused” tools

Families often hear overlapping terms—Guardian ad Litem, custody evaluation, parenting investigation, in-camera interview—and assume they are interchangeable. They are not.

·        The in-camera interview is the judge’s private conversation with the child about wishes and concerns.

·        A GAL (when appointed) is typically tasked with investigating and offering recommendations about the child’s best interest.

·        A custody evaluation (when ordered) is usually a structured assessment performed by a qualified evaluator.

In many cases, these tools complement each other. The court considers adult testimony and evidence, may consider a GAL’s work or an evaluation, and may also speak with the child in chambers—without making the child the messenger between parents.

Closing perspective: what the interview is really for

A custody case is ultimately an adult process with adult stakes. Yet courts also recognize that children need a meaningful opportunity to be heard—and that an in-camera interview can provide that opportunity without putting the child on the stand.

For many fathers, understanding the purpose and structure of the interview reduces the fear that “everything depends on one conversation.” In Ohio, that conversation is typically one piece of a larger best-interest framework—designed to hear the child, protect the child, and keep responsibility for the decision where it belongs: with the court.