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.

An in-camera interview (sometimes called an “in chambers” interview) is one way a court may hear a child’s wishes and concerns in a custody case. In Ohio, the court may interview the child as part of the best-interest analysis, and in some situations an interview is required upon request.

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

During an in-camera interview, parents are generally not present. The point is to reduce pressure and avoid the dynamic of a child trying to “perform” for a parent.

Depending on the court and the case, attorneys may be permitted to attend, and the court may involve a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in the broader custody investigation. Whether and how these participants are involved can vary by county and court practice.

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?”

In reality, courts often focus first on whether the child can express wishes and concerns in a meaningful way. That can include the child’s age, maturity, and ability to understand the situation and communicate reliably.

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.

Some courts record the interview and treat it as sealed. In other settings, the interview may be summarized in a way that informs the court’s reasoning without broad disclosure of the child’s statements.

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

Ohio law includes protections aimed at keeping children out of the evidence-gathering process. One result is that courts are cautious about anything that looks like coaching, scripting, or creating “statements” from children to use in litigation.

This is one reason courts often view the in-camera interview as the appropriate method—when a child’s perspective is relevant—rather than informal recordings or written “preferences.”

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 wishes at home.”Courts tend to be wary of anything that pressures a child or turns the child’s words into a litigation tool.

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.