The Ohio Court of Appeals recently dismissed a petition filed by Raymond Edward Vincent Sampson, who sought a prompt hearing regarding his parental rights. The court found that the issue was moot because the judge overseeing his case had already scheduled a hearing for November 9, 2026. This decision affects Sampson's ongoing divorce and custody proceedings in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas.

Sampson, representing himself, filed a motion on September 23, 2025, in the Domestic Relations Division of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. He requested a determination regarding the restoration of his parental rights and parenting time. After some action was taken on his motion, including the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem to interview the children, Sampson felt that the case was not moving quickly enough. He subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Procedendo on August 25, 2026, seeking to compel Judge Colleen A. Falkowski to set a hearing and make a decision on his motion.

The court's opinion noted that on September 2, 2026, it issued an Alternative Writ, which prompted further actions in the case. However, on September 18, 2026, Judge Falkowski filed a Motion to Dismiss Sampson's petition, arguing that it had become moot. This was because she had already scheduled a hearing for November 9, 2026, to address Sampson's request for a determination of his parental rights.

The court ruled that a writ of procedendo is appropriate only when a trial court has refused to act or has unduly delayed a decision. The court cited previous rulings that established that a petition for procedendo becomes moot when the trial court has taken the actions the petitioner seeks to compel. In this case, the court stated, "The trial court has set a hearing for November 9, 2026. Therefore, Respondent has taken the action that Relator seeks to compel. This renders Relator’s Petition moot."

The court also pointed out that while Sampson's motion had not yet been ruled upon, the scheduled hearing meant that there was no basis for the court to compel the judge to act more quickly. The opinion concluded with the dismissal of Sampson's petition and granted the motion to dismiss filed by Judge Falkowski.

This ruling indicates that the court is not inclined to intervene in cases where the lower court is already taking steps to address the issues raised by a petitioner. The dismissal of Sampson's petition underscores the importance of allowing the judicial process to unfold without unnecessary interference.

Looking ahead, the outcome of the scheduled hearing on November 9, 2026, will be crucial for Sampson. The decision made during that hearing will determine the status of his parental rights and may have long-lasting implications for his relationship with his children. As of now, there are no indications that Sampson intends to appeal this ruling, but he may still pursue his interests in the upcoming hearing.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions Sampson may take following the hearing. The court's dismissal of his petition does not prevent him from continuing to seek resolution in his ongoing custody matter.