On Wednesday, September 24, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss a mandamus action filed by Christopher P. Conomy against Delaware County Domestic Relations Court Judge Randall D. Fuller.

The case, entitled State ex rel. Conomy v. Fuller, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4411, centered on Conomy’s attempt to compel Judge Fuller to rescind an order denying his custody motion and to issue a new order granting him custody of his two minor children.

The divorce proceedings, overseen by Judge Fuller, involve a dispute over the custody of Conomy’s two children. Initially, the parties agreed to place the children in the temporary custody of their maternal grandmother, with Conomy receiving supervised visitation. Conomy then filed a motion to expand his visitation rights, which was denied, followed by an emergency custody motion after one of the children allegedly attempted self-harm.

Judge Fuller denied Conomy’s custody motion because it lacked a supporting affidavit, temporary custody had already been determined, there were no new grounds for changing the temporary custody arrangement, and there was no immediate concern for the children’s health, safety, or welfare. Conomy’s subsequent appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals was dismissed due to the lack of a final, appealable order.

In August 2024, Conomy initiated a mandamus action, seeking to compel Judge Fuller to grant him unrestricted custody and requesting damages for emotional distress, psychological distress, loss of income, loss of consortium, and other economic and non-economic damages. Judge Fuller responded with a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, which the Fifth District granted. The Fifth District reasoned that Conomy was improperly seeking mandamus to control Judge Fuller’s judicial discretion, using the writ as a substitute for appeal, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to award damages.

During the appeal, Conomy filed several motions, including a motion to disqualify Judge Fuller’s counsel, which was denied. He also filed a motion to amend the appendix to his brief, seeking to include an order issued by a magistrate in the divorce proceedings, but this was denied because the Fifth District had not considered the order.

Additionally, Conomy filed a motion for referral to a special master, alleging a conflict of interest due to Judge Fuller’s counsel’s affiliation with attorneys providing legal services to the Fifth District, which was denied because Civ.R. 60(B)(5) did not provide a mechanism for the requested relief. A motion to strike affidavits submitted by Judge Fuller’s counsel was also denied.

The Ohio Supreme Court, in its per curiam opinion, found that Conomy had not established a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on Judge Fuller’s part, or the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The court emphasized that mandamus cannot be used to control judicial discretion and that Conomy had an adequate remedy through appealing the final custody determination. The court also held that Conomy was not entitled to damages because his mandamus petition was correctly dismissed.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.