On Wednesday, April 16, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling affirming the dismissal of a mandamus petition filed by Solomon Tentman against Judge Betsy Sundermann of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. The case centered on Tentman’s request for the court to exercise jurisdiction over his divorce and child custody issues, which he argued should invalidate a Tennessee court’s previous judgments.

Tentman had petitioned the First District Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus that would compel Judge Sundermann to declare the Tennessee court’s decisions void due to a claimed lack of jurisdiction. Tentman contended that the Tennessee court had acted improperly by exercising jurisdiction just two days before the conclusion of a six-month residency requirement mandated by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

However, the First District Court of Appeals dismissed Tentman’s petition, concluding that he had an adequate remedy through the ordinary appeal process, as he had already challenged the Hamilton County court’s decision not to assert jurisdiction over his case. The appeals court found that Judge Sundermann had acted within her authority in dismissing Tentman’s case and did not exhibit a clear legal duty to provide the relief he sought.

In the Supreme Court’s ruling, the justices noted that for a writ of mandamus to be granted, Tentman must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested, a clear duty on the part of the judge, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The court determined that Tentman’s arguments related to the jurisdiction of the Tennessee court effectively questioned the discretion exercised by the Hamilton County court rather than presenting a clear jurisdictional issue.

The Supreme Court’s opinion emphasized that Tentman had already utilized his right to appeal the Hamilton County court’s dismissal, which constituted a sufficient remedy in the ordinary course of law. The court declined to expedite Tentman’s appeal and denied several motions he had filed, including requests to supplement the record and to strike Judge Sundermann’s brief.

Judge Betsy Sundermann, who presides over the Domestic Division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, played a critical role in this legal process. Her decision to dismiss Tentman’s case was upheld by both the appellate court and the Supreme Court, reflecting a consensus on the adequacy of the legal remedies available to him.

The ongoing legal proceedings began when Tentman’s ex-wife, Rebecca Barbarette, moved to Blount County, Tennessee, with their child and initiated divorce and custody proceedings there. Tentman subsequently filed a similar case in Hamilton County. The Hamilton County court’s dismissal of Tentman’s case was based on the conclusion that the Tennessee court’s actions were in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA, allowing it to maintain jurisdiction despite the timing of Barbarette’s filing.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that the dismissal of Tentman’s mandamus petition was appropriate, as he failed to show that the Hamilton County court lacked jurisdiction or that Judge Sundermann had any obligation to grant his requests. This decision reinforces the importance of following established legal processes and highlights the complexities involved in cross-state custody and divorce cases.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.