IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CINCINNATI, OHIO

JULIE GOFFSTEIN ) Case No.

c/o Kenneth D. Myers, Esq.
6100 Oak Tree Blvd., Suite 200 )
Cleveland, OH 44131
) JUDGE:
and
)
J.G.,J.G.(2),
A.G.,E.G., L.G., )
A.G(2), minors,
by their mother and )
natural guardian,
c/o Kenneth D. Myers, Esq. )
6100 Oak Tree Blvd., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44131 )

)
Plaintiffs,
) COMPLAINT WITH
JURY DEMAND
-vs- )

HON. JON H. SIEVE, )

JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, DOMESTIC )
RELATIONS DIVISION,
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO )
800 Broadway
Cincinnati, OH 45202 )
Sued in his official
and individual capacities )

Defendant. )

1
 INTRODUCTION

1. This is a complaint brought by private citizens against a

sitting state court judge for redress of violations of plaintiffs'

constitutional rights. The complaint seeks declaratory, equitable

and injunctive relief only.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections

1331. Claims are asserted pursuant to the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681, 42

U.S.C. 12101-12213, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1988. To the

extent declaratory relief is sought, claims are asserted pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202. Venue is proper pursuant to

20 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) because the defendant is located within

the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Ohio.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff JULIE GOFFSTEIN is an adult who at all relevant

times was a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio within the Southern

District of Ohio.

4. Plaintiffs J.G., J.G.(2), A.G., E.G., L.G. and A.G.(2) are

all minors, the natural-born children of plaintiff Julie Goffstein,

who at all relevant times lived in Hamilton County, Ohio within the

Southern District of Ohio.

2
 5. Defendant HON. JON H. SIEVE was at all relevant times the

duly-elected judge of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas,

Domestic Relations Division. In that capacity, Judge Sieve is

responsible for the implementation of all official governmental

laws, policies, regulations and procedures as they relate to

matters coming before him as a judge in the Domestic Relations

Court. Judge Sieve is sued for declaratory, equitable and

injunctive relief in his official and individual capacities.

FACTS

6. Plaintiff Julie Goffstein and non-party Peter Goffstein

are the natural parents of J.G., J.G.(2), A.G., E.G., L.G. and

A.G.(2), all minor children. The Goffsteins practiced Orthodox

Judaism and for years they raised their children in the Orthodox

Jewish tradition, belonging to a strictly religious sect of

Orthodox Judaism known as Chabad or Lubavitch.

7. In Lubavitch traditions, children do not attend public

schools, but instead attend Jewish day schools and, as they get to

be high school-age, they attend Yeshivas, where, along with basic

secular studies, the children are steeped in the history, culture,

values and practices of the Jewish religion. Many Yeshivas do not

teach secular topics, or filter secular topics through the lens of

Orthodox Judaism. These schools are no different in concept than

any other religious parochial school in that the emphasis is on

religious education. Some Lubavitcher parents, like plaintiff Julie

Goffstein, supplement the Jewish education with online secular

3
courses. Lubavitchers also strictly adhere to Jewish laws and

traditions, such as keeping strict dietary laws, observing Jewish

holidays, including the Sabbath, wearing certain items of clothing,

such as “Yarmulkes” or skull caps and “Tzitzits,” a four-corner

shirt with strings attached to each corner which are worn visibly,

wearing their hair a certain way, with “payos” or flowing sidelocks

for boys, living in a Jewish community, attending certain

synagogues, separating males from females in most social and

religious situations, and “davening” or praying several times

daily. These laws, customs, practices and educational requirements

are absolutely vital to the Chabad lifestyle and rise to the level

of Jewish law, which Lubavitcher parents and children have a right

to practice and to which they have a right to adhere. Under

Orthodox Jewish law, parents are required to send their children to

religious schools because public schools teach subjects that are

considered contradictory to Jewish teachings and therefore are

considered to be leading the children away from God. In addition,

Orthodox Jews’ holiday schedules do not correspond to the public

school holiday schedules. For example, the Jewish holidays of Rosh

Hashana, Yom Kippur and Sukkos, which occur during the fall,

require Orthodox Jewish children to miss more school days than

public schools allow, while Jewish schools account for those

holidays and are closed during those times.

8. On July 2, 2010, Mrs. Goffstein filed for divorce from Mr.

Goffstein. The case was assigned to defendant Judge Sieve.

9. Mr. Goffstein also filed for custody of the four youngest

4
children. By this time, Mr. Goffstein had decided he was no longer

interested in practicing Orthodox Judaism and wanted to have the

children removed from their Jewish day schools and religious

education. During court-ordered visitations, Mr. Goffstein also

began to forbid the boys from adhering to their Chabad traditions

and practices.

10. On June 21, 2012, after evidentiary hearings on Mr.

Goffstein’s motion, Judge Sieve ruled in favor of plaintiff Julie

Goffstein and permitted all of the children to remain in Mrs.

Goffstein’s custody.

11. In so ruling, Judge Sieve made several specific

references to the extent to which Mrs. Goffstein practiced her

religion and the extent to which she raised her children in that

religious tradition.

12. On March 11, 2013, Mr. Goffstein filed for a reallocation

of custody. In so doing, Mr. Goffstein cited as reasons for the

change in custody Mrs. Goffstein’s religious practices and the

extent to which she imposed those religious practices on the

children, which he claimed alienated the children from him.

13. On May 22, 2013, after additional hearings, Judge Sieve

reversed his earlier ruling and granted custody of the four

youngest children to Mr. Goffstein. In doing so, Judge Sieve

permitted the four youngest children, then ages 5,7,9 and 11, to

continue to attend religious school in Cincinnati only through

eighth grade (but only if Mrs. Goffstein could afford to continue

to pay tuition, which she could not afford to do), at which time

5
Mr. Goffstein would be free to enroll them in the school of his

choice.

14. Judge Sieve also prohibited the two eldest children, then

ages 15 and 13, who remained in the custody of Mrs. Goffstein, from

continuing to attend the religious schools of their mother’s

choosing beyond the eighth grade by allocating educational

decisions to the father. At the time, the oldest child was already

attending Yeshiva Lubavitch of Cincinnati, the equivalent of high

school, and the four boys were attending Cincinnati Hebrew Day

School, which runs through the eighth grade (the youngest child was

too young for school at the time).

15. Although Judge Sieve couched his decision to remove

custody of the four youngest children from Mrs. Goffstein in terms

of Mrs. Goffstein’s alleged failure to follow court orders, his

decision–as well as some of the language he used during the

hearings–rested upon the judge’s dissatisfaction with Mrs.

Goffstein’s decision to send her children to religious schools.

16. For example, Judge Sieve found that J.G., the oldest

child, was not enrolled “in any state accredited school from

September 2012 to March 12, 2013.” However, Judge Sieve knew from

testimony at the hearing that J.G. was enrolled during that time in

the Yeshiva. Judge Sieve found that “this lack of education for

such a lengthy period of time is demonstrative of Mother’s

misplaced priorities. Father’s serious concerns regarding the

secular education of the children while under Mother’s custody is

well-founded....Secular education for these children must be given

6
a much higher priority than the level of online inconsistency

chosen by Mother in the past. Therefore, the Court considers

Father’s emphasis upon more consistent, traditional school

enrollments to be better in advancing the secular education needs

of the children. Fulfillment of their secular education

requirements is quintessential to the best interest of these young

children; Father presents the best likelihood for its

accomplishment.” See May 22, 2013 Judgment Entry Motion to

Reallocate Parental Rights and Responsibilities with Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law,” at p. 2-3, attached as Exhibit A,

emphasis added.

17. At the time of this decision, Judge Sieve had heard

testimony from at least one Orthodox rabbi that taking Jewish

children out of Jewish schools was contrary to Luvabatcher

teachings and that enrolling Orthodox children in public schools

was contrary to Orthodox teachings.

18. The four younger children were removed from Mrs.

Goffstein’s custody and transferred by Mr. Goffstein from religious

school to a public school. The two older boys initially attended

Yeshiva Lubavitch of Cincinnati, and then moved with their mother

to New York, which has a much larger Orthodox Jewish community.

Although Judge Sieve gave Mr. Goffstein authority to decide which

school the older two boys attended, Mr. Goffstein has never

exercised this authority and has continued to allow the two older

boys to attend religious schools.

19. On June 20, 2013, Mrs. Goffstein appealed Judge Sieve’s

7
custody ruling to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals.

20. On July 30, 2013, Judge Sieve further restricted Mrs.

Goffstein’s parenting time and granted Mr. Goffstein exclusive

authority over the education of all six children.

21. On January 24, 2014, Mr. Goffstein filed a motion to

further restrict Mrs. Goffstein’s parenting time and on February

28, 2014, Mrs. Goffstein filed a motion to modify the existing

order to give her more parenting time.

22. Judge Sieve held hearings on those motions and on April

2, 2014, issued another ruling, this one further restricting Mrs.

Goffstein’s rights regarding the children and her time with them.

23. In that order, Judge Sieve cited examples of Mrs.

Goffstein’s conduct that constituted “a willful and continuous

pattern of conduct with the intended result of alienation of the

minor children from their Father. Mother’s actions also serve as

an attempt to undermine Father’s authority as the custodial parent.

An example of Mother’s conduct is exhibited in her letters and text

messages spanning over a period of months to A.G., one of the

children, promising to get him and his younger brother’s (sic) back

in Jewish school. Mother testified that Father sending the

children to Loveland public school violates her religious beliefs,

and she will not act in violation of her religious beliefs.

Mother’s firm stance cannot be reconciled with the best interests

of the children.” See Entry on Motions to Modify Parenting Time,

April 2, 2014 at p., 2, attached as Exhibit B, emphasis added.

24. June 6, 2014, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal,

8
concluding that the judge’s order was not a final appealable order.

25. On June 24, 2014, Judge Sieve issued a final decree of

divorce, which included the previously-ordered custody and

education orders.

26. On July 21, 2014, Mrs. Goffstein once again filed an

appeal to the Ohio First District Court of Appeals.

27. On November 6, 2014, Judge Sieve further restricted Mrs.

Goffstein’s access to the children and required all visits between

the children and Mrs. Goffstein to be supervised.

28. On October 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed Judge

Sieve without reaching the issue of the constitutionality of Judge

Sieve’s custody and educational orders.

29. On December 14, 2015, Mrs. Goffstein appealed the Court

of Appeals’ ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court. That appeal is

pending; the Ohio Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear

the case.

30. Since Judge Sieve’s July, 2013 order granting Mr.

Goffstein full control over the children’s education, Mr. Goffstein

has removed the younger four children entirely from religious

education. The oldest two children remain in Mrs. Goffstein’s

custody and are attending religious schools, but are still subject

to the whims of Mr. Goffstein, who could at any time decide to

exert the authority granted to him by Judge Sieve to move the older

two boys into a public school.

31. In one hearing, Gary Crouch, the Supervisor of the

Parenting Services Department for the Hamilton County Domestic

9
Relations Court, testified that he knew Mrs. Goffstein believed

that neither Mr. Crouch nor the Court was respecting her rights and

her children’s rights to religious observances, in that for years

the children had been raised in Ultra-Orthodox Jewish traditions

and that the children were being assimilated into mainstream

society. This attempt at assimilation caused great frustration to

Mrs. Goffstein and children, according to Mr. Crouch. He also

testified that Mrs. Goffstein believed the historical religious

observances of the boys and the family were being ignored by the

court system and the issue boiled down to whether Mrs. Goffstein

had the right to express her religious freedom.

32. It is settled law in Ohio and throughout the United

States that courts are not permitted to make custody rulings in

domestic relations cases based on a party’s religion.

33. In the seminal case on religion and child custody in

Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court, interpreting federal and state case

law, said:

A domestic relations court may consider

the religious practices of the parents in
order to protect the best interests of a
child. However, the United States
Constitution flatly prohibits a trial court
from ever evaluating the merits of religious
doctrine or defining the contents of that
doctrine.
******
To the extent that a court refuses to
award custody to a parent because of her
religious beliefs, the court burdens her
choice of a religion in violation of the Free
Exercise Clause of the United States
Constitution.
In addition to their free exercise
rights, parents have a fundamental right to
educate their children, including the right to

10
 communicate their moral and religious values.
Custody cannot be awarded solely on the
basis of the parents’ religious affiliations
and to do so violates the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
*******
A parent may not be denied custody on the
basis of his or her religious practices unless
there is probative evidence that those
practices will adversely affect the mental or
physical health of the child. Evidence that
the child will not be permitted to participate
in certain social or patriotic activities is
not sufficient to prove possible harm.

Pater v. Pater(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 393 at hn

1,5,6,7,10.

34. Judge Sieve’s decisions are based on direct violations of

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in

that they impinge on the children’s right to freely practice their

religion and Mrs. Goffstein’s right to practice her religion and to

educate her children as she sees fit, including the right to place

them in religious school. Judge Sieve’s custody and education

rulings specifically tie Mrs. Goffstein’s practice of her religion,

and her passing her religion on to her children, to the children’s

best interests and impose a secular education on the children.

These decisions directly interfere with both the children’s rights

to freely practice their religion and Mrs. Goffstein’s right to

practice her religion and to educate her children as she sees fit,

including the right to send her children to religious school. Mrs.

Goffstein’s religious practices led directly to her loss of custody

of the younger four children and to the removal of those children

from religious school, as well as the grant to Mr. Goffstein of the

right to remove the older two boys from religious school at his

11
sole discretion. Judge Sieve has no right to interfere with Mrs.

Goffstein’s right to practice her religion as she sees fit nor does

Judge Sieve have the right to interfere with the childrens’ freedom

to practice their religion. Judge Sieve’s overriding goal was to

send the children to a secular school, which was in violation of

Mrs. Goffstein’s and the children’s rights. He knew that Mrs.

Goffstein’s religious beliefs would not abide an order sending the

children to a secular school, so he ordered that custody be changed

to the father in order to accomplish that goal. It is Mrs.

Goffstein’s practice of her religion, and the religious practices

of the children, that is at the heart of Judge Sieve’s rulings.

COUNT I

35. Plaintiffs reassert the foregoing as if fully rewritten

herein.

36. The actions of the defendant constitute a violation of

plaintiffs' constitutional right, pursuant to the substantive and

procedural due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, to

familial relationships, which includes the right of Mrs. Goffstein

to the companionship, care, custody and management of her children,

including the right to control their education and the right of the

children to the companionship of their mother.

37. As a direct result of the actions and conduct of

defendant, plaintiffs suffered, continue to suffer and will

continue to suffer the loss of their constitutional rights.

12
 COUNT II

38. Plaintiffs reassert the foregoing as if fully rewritten

herein.

39. The actions of the defendant constitute violations of the

plaintiffs’ rights, under the First and the Fourteenth Amendments

to the U.S. Constitution, to freely exercise and practice their

religion free from governmental interference.

40. As a direct result of the actions and conduct of

defendant, plaintiffs suffered, continue to suffer and will

continue to suffer loss of their fundamental constitutional rights.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs ask that this court grant the following

relief:

A) Declare that the acts and conduct of the

defendant constitute violations of plaintiffs'
constitutional rights.

B) Enjoin defendant from enforcing any orders

that violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights
and vacate as nullities any orders that were
unconstitutionally obtained.

C) Grant to the plaintiff and against the

defendant, appropriate costs and attorneys'
fees.

D) Grant to the plaintiff whatever other

relief, including equitable relief, the Court
deems appropriate.

/s/Kenneth D. Myers
KENNETH D. MYERS (0053655)
6100 Oak Tree Blvd., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44131
(216) 241-3900
kdmy@aol.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

13
 JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

/s/Kenneth D. Myers
KENNETH D. MYERS

Counsel for Plaintiffs

14
EX EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B