The Ohio Court of Appeals recently dismissed a case involving a request for records related to a foster child placed in the home of Randall W. Conway. The court ruled that the documents Conway sought were confidential and not subject to public disclosure. This decision affects individuals seeking access to similar records from child protective services agencies.
The case, titled State v. Muskingum, was filed under docket number CT2026-0057 on August 25, 2026. It arose from Conway's efforts to obtain records from the Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services agency regarding a foster child. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the limits of public access to sensitive records concerning children in protective services.
In July 2025, Conway submitted a public records request to the Muskingum County Agency. He sought various documents about the foster child's psychological, behavioral, medical, and developmental history. Despite receiving an acknowledgment of his request from Mark A. Zanghi, an assistant prosecuting attorney representing the Agency, no documents were provided. Frustrated, Conway filed a mandamus complaint in June 2026, arguing that both the Agency and Zanghi had a legal obligation to provide the requested records under Ohio’s Public Records Act.
The dispute escalated as both the Agency and Zanghi filed motions to dismiss Conway's complaint. Conway, in turn, sought summary judgment in his favor. The court decided to treat the motions as summary-judgment motions, allowing all parties to submit additional evidence.
The court's ruling focused on two main issues: whether Zanghi had a legal duty to provide the records and whether the requested documents were classified as public records. The judges in this case were Andrew J. King, Robert G. Montgomery, and David M. Gormley.
The court concluded that Zanghi was not responsible for providing the records. According to the ruling, "Zanghi is not the person tasked with providing any of the Agency’s public records to others." The court emphasized that Zanghi, while serving as legal counsel, did not oversee the records and thus had no obligation to fulfill Conway's request.
Furthermore, the court determined that the records Conway sought were confidential. Under Ohio law, specifically R.C. 5153.17, records maintained by public children’s services agencies regarding investigations and care of children are to remain confidential. The court stated, "The records sought by Conway focus on the Agency’s investigation of Conway’s family and the care and treatment that the child received from the Agency and others."
In its opinion, the court referenced previous cases where similar requests for confidential records were denied, reinforcing the principle that certain records are protected from public disclosure. The court noted, "The records in question are designated as confidential by R.C. 5153.17(B), they are not public records under Ohio’s Public Records Act."
As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of both Zanghi and the Agency, dismissing Conway's complaint. The ruling also denied Conway's request for statutory damages and court costs, as the court found no breach of obligation under the Public Records Act.
This decision has implications for individuals seeking access to records from child protective services. It underscores the confidentiality protections surrounding sensitive information related to children in foster care and the limitations of public records requests in such cases. The ruling highlights the balance between the public's right to access information and the need to protect the privacy of vulnerable individuals.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether Conway will appeal the court's decision. There are no indications of related cases pending that could further address the issues raised in this ruling. However, this case sets a precedent regarding the confidentiality of records held by child protective services in Ohio.