The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's ruling in the divorce case of Kelsey Sly and Remel Barbee. The decision, rendered on October 20, 2026, confirmed the trial court's decisions regarding custody arrangements and attorney fees. This ruling affects the couple's three minor children and clarifies legal standards for future divorce cases in Ohio.
Kelsey Sly and Remel Barbee were married on June 6, 2015, and have three children together: S.B., born January 14, 2015; D.B., born October 27, 2017; and M.B., born June 12, 2019. The couple separated in February 2024, and Sly filed for divorce shortly after on February 16, 2024. Although Barbee did not file an answer to the complaint initially, he participated fully in the proceedings with the help of his attorney, Heather B. Sobel.
The case was heard in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations. Throughout the divorce proceedings, a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed to represent the interests of the children. Temporary orders were issued in June 2024, which named Sly as the residential parent and established a shared parenting schedule. However, the couple could not reach an agreement on several key issues, including custody arrangements, leading to a trial held over three days in August 2025.
During the trial, both parties submitted stipulations regarding financial matters and child-related issues, but several matters remained unresolved. The trial court ultimately conducted an in-camera interview with the children on September 15, 2025, to understand their wishes regarding custody. Following the trial, the court issued a Judgment Entry/Decree of Divorce on September 29, 2025, which included provisions for equal parenting time and ordered Sly to pay half of Barbee's attorney fees, totaling $15,610.
Sly appealed the trial court's decision, raising two main assignments of error. The first challenged the award of attorney fees to Barbee, arguing that the trial court failed to provide adequate justification for the amount awarded. The court ruled that the trial court had acted within its discretion, noting that it considered various factors, including the conduct of both parties during the proceedings. The trial court found that Sly's actions had unnecessarily increased litigation costs, justifying the attorney fee award.
In addressing Sly's second assignment of error, the court examined claims of procedural and evidentiary errors that Sly argued denied her a fair trial. Sly contended that the trial court's refusal to record the in-camera interview with the children and its exclusion of certain evidence related to Barbee's past felony conviction were unjust. However, the court found that any potential error regarding the interview was harmless, as the children's wishes were already represented by the GAL, and the trial court had sufficient grounds to exclude the evidence as irrelevant.
The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings, affirming the lower court's judgment. The ruling reinforces the importance of proper conduct during divorce proceedings and clarifies the standards for determining attorney fees in Ohio.
Moving forward, this decision may influence how similar cases are handled in Ohio, particularly regarding custody arrangements and the awarding of attorney fees. The ruling emphasizes that trial courts have broad discretion in making determinations about these issues, and parties must ensure their conduct does not unnecessarily prolong litigation.
As for the possibility of an appeal, details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Sly plans to pursue further legal action. However, the court's ruling in this case sets a precedent that may impact future divorce and custody cases in Ohio.