County judge says commissioners aren’t giving the court enough space

Portage County Domestic Relations Court Judge Paula Giulitto on Feb. 17 filed a judgement entry against the county commissioners, alleging they have failed to provide the DR Court with sufficient space to do its job.

Giulitto has set an April 30 deadline for the county commissioners to either identify an existing facility to house the county’s DR Court or locate a site where a suitable facility can be built. Judgement entries carry the weight of a court order. 

The commissioners have until May 29 to solicit architecture bids for the project. If an existing building can be found, the DR Court must be in it by May 29, 2027, her order states. If not, a new facility must be constructed by Dec. 1, 2027.

Citing the Ohio Supreme Court, the judgement entry states that as early as 1842, county commissioners have legally been required to provide “a suitable place for the holding of the courts” and “all things coupled with the administration of justice” within the county.

The DR Court is currently housed in the county courthouse at 203 West Main St., Ravenna. It handles annulments, dissolutions, divorces, legal separation, domestic violence, dating violence, custody disputes, enforcement actions, parenting time and child and spousal support cases, any or all of which might involve civil domestic violence protection orders.

It also handles visitation cases, which involve visitation for someone other than parents; parentage actions, which involve unmarried litigants who have a child; and Uniform Interstate Family Support Act cases, which involve cases where an out-of-state litigant is seeking child support or enforcement of a child support order.

Giulitto and three magistrates share the DR Court’s three small courtrooms. Lawyers, witnesses and clients crowd into three small meeting rooms, and sometimes utilize two more multifunction rooms.

“There’s four hearing officers and there’s two parties and many times more to each case, which means there could be up to eight or more parties being present at any time, not including parties showing up for the next scheduled hearing," she said.

Size is important when one considers the emotionally charged nature of the DR Court’s cases.

“It's our paramount concern to keep everyone safe, first of all, and sometimes that can be challenging, given the space constraints and lack of rooms,” she said. “There's not enough space insofar as the courtrooms, and there's not enough meeting rooms to safely put litigants, to be able to place litigants while they're waiting to go into the courtroom and have private conversations with counsel.”

Leaning on a “space needs assessment” the National Center for State Courts issued to the county commissioners in April 2024, Giulitto said the DR Court needs four courtrooms, all of them large enough for safety.

Now, “it's logistically very difficult for the parties to safely be able to be present in the courtroom and move about the courtroom, if necessary, to get to the witness stand,” she said.

The report also identified the need for 14 meeting/multifunction rooms and additional office space.

“Right now, we have 13 individuals. We need at least one or two more staff members, but quite frankly, we have no space to even give them an office,” Giulitto said. 

Any new structure would have to take into account the county’s potential growth and needs, she said.

The commissioners did take her through two prospective buildings, but one was about the same size as the DR Court’s current space, and the commissioners elected not to proceed with the second one, she said.

Giulitto said she feels filing the court order was necessary given the lack of progress the commissioners have made in resolving the court’s need for “necessary and reasonable space.”

Citing ongoing litigation, Commissioner Sabrina Christian-Bennett declined comment. Commissioners Mike Tinlin and Jill Crawford did not respond to requests for comment.

Multiple informal and formal requests

Giulitto’s judgement entry cites her multiple requests, two requisitioned studies and details five years of her efforts to secure sufficient space.

“After informal requests over many months, in 2021, the DR Court formally requested that the Portage County Commissioners provide suitable space for the operation of the DR Court as the allotted space was not suitable, safe, or sufficient," Giullitto wrote.

The commissioners failed to fund renovations and expansions for the DR Court’s space, even after a 2021 feasibility, she stated.

On April 21, 2022, the commissioners stated in writing that they had prioritized finding  “adequate, sufficient, and appropriate” space for the DR Court.

In June 2023, the DR Court asked the Ohio Supreme Court to assess the “suitability and security of the DR Court’s current space.” The OSC on Sept. 20, 2023 issued a report identifying “multiple significant defects and safety and security issues related to the insufficient space allocated to the DR Court, confirming that the space was not suitable for the Court’s needs,” Giullitto wrote.

The commissioners responded by asking the National Center for State Courts to approve a “space needs assessment” in October of 2023. Its final report, issued April 24, 2024, also identified “multiple significant defects and concerns,” confirming what the commissioners already knew, the judgement entry states.

Continuing to assert that the DR Court needs additional space to operate, Giulitto had repeatedly met with the commissioners for the past five years, her judgment entry states. She also wrote that during a November 2024 meeting, the commissioners acknowledged that their only option was to build a new structure to house the DR Court because they had not been able to find a suitable facility available for purchase.

The DR Court on Nov. 21, 2024, presented the commissioners with a proposal to build a facility on county-owned land near the courthouse, noting that it would be “readily accessible to the public.”

As of Feb. 17, the commissioners have not responded to the proposal, identified an alternate suitable facility, advised the DR Court of its intention to resolve the matter, “or advised the DR Court of its intentions generally,” the judgement entry states.

And that, Giulitto concluded, equates to the commissioners’ “ongoing breach of legal duty to provide the DR Court with a reasonably necessary and suitable place to conduct the business of the Court.”