Alise Price Investigation Pattern of Bias Against Fathers Documented

A Pattern Emerges: 23 Cases, Same Result

For the past six months, our investigative team has been reviewing cases involving Guardian ad Litem Alise Price, who maintains an office in Westerville, Ohio, and frequently appears in Franklin County Domestic Relations Court. What we found is deeply troubling.

Of the 23 contested custody cases we reviewed where Alise Price served as GAL, fathers received primary custody in zero cases. In 21 of 23 cases, mothers were awarded primary custody with fathers receiving standard visitation (every other weekend) or less. In the remaining 2 cases, the parents reached a settlement before Price issued her final recommendation.

The statistical probability of this outcome occurring by chance? Less than 0.01%.

Methodology: How We Conducted This Investigation

This investigation is based on:

Court records: Review of 23 Franklin County Domestic Relations Court cases (2020-2025) where Alise Price was appointed as GAL
GAL reports: Analysis of 18 GAL reports authored by Alise Price (obtained through public records requests and father participants)
Interviews: In-depth interviews with 14 fathers who had Alise Price as their GAL
Comparative analysis: Statistical comparison with other Franklin County GALs to determine if this pattern is unique to Price

Red Flags: What the Evidence Shows

1. Grossly Unequal Time Allocation

In multiple cases, fathers reported that Alise Price spent 2-4 hours interviewing the mother and her family members, but allocated only 15-30 minutes for the father's interview. One father, Michael S., provided detailed documentation:

"She spent three hours at my ex-wife's house. I logged it because I was suspicious. When it was my turn, she showed up 25 minutes late, stayed for 18 minutes total, barely looked around my apartment, and left. But in her report, she wrote a full page about my ex's home environment and one paragraph about mine."

We requested Alise Price's time logs through discovery in three separate cases. In each case, her attorney cited "work product privilege" and refused to disclose how time was allocated between parents.

2. Factual Errors and Misrepresentations

In 11 of the 18 GAL reports we reviewed, fathers identified significant factual errors, including:

Incorrect dates of events
Statements attributed to the father that he claims he never made
Omission of documented evidence provided by the father
Inclusion of unverified allegations from the mother without independent investigation

When we cross-referenced GAL reports with submitted evidence, we found multiple instances where fathers had provided documentation (school records, medical records, text message logs) that directly contradicted claims in the GAL report—yet the documentation was never mentioned.

3. Documented Conflicts of Interest

Through professional networking analysis and public records, we discovered that Alise Price has professional relationships with several family law attorneys in the Columbus area. In at least 4 of the cases we reviewed, the mother's attorney had previously referred clients to Alise Price for GAL services or had worked with her on other cases.

One father, R.K., filed a motion to remove Alise Price as GAL after discovering she had referred business to his ex-wife's attorney on multiple prior occasions. The motion was denied. Price remained on the case and recommended the mother receive primary custody.

4. "Parental Alienation" Used Exclusively Against Fathers

In 7 of the cases reviewed, Alise Price's report included references to "parental alienation" or "high conflict co-parenting." In every single instance, the father was blamed for the conflict.

However, when we reviewed evidence submitted by fathers—including text messages showing mothers refusing to communicate, denying court-ordered parenting time, or making disparaging remarks about the father—none of this evidence appeared in Price's reports. The narrative was always the same: father is "high conflict," mother is "trying her best."

Case Study: The Smoking Gun

In one particularly egregious case, a father provided Ring doorbell video footage showing his ex-wife screaming profanities at him during a child exchange, striking his car with her hand, and refusing to return the child as ordered by the court.

Alise Price's GAL report made no mention of this evidence. Instead, it stated: "Mother has expressed concerns about Father's anger issues during exchanges."

When the father's attorney confronted Price about the omission during a court hearing, she claimed she "didn't find the video relevant." The judge adopted her recommendation anyway. The father lost primary custody.

The Ohio Bar Complaints: Why They Keep Getting Dismissed

At least 8 fathers we interviewed filed formal grievances with the Ohio Bar Association alleging ethical violations by Alise Price. All 8 complaints were dismissed without formal investigation.

Why? According to bar grievance procedures, GAL recommendations are considered "advocacy on behalf of the client" (in this case, the child). Unless a GAL commits fraud, criminal conduct, or violates a clear ethical rule, the bar defers to "professional judgment."

The result: GALs like Alise Price operate with near-total immunity. Even documented bias, factual errors, and conflicts of interest are insufficient to trigger disciplinary action.

Statistical Analysis: How Price Compares to Other Franklin County GALs

To determine if this pattern is systemic or specific to Alise Price, we analyzed custody outcomes for 5 other Franklin County GALs over the same time period (2020-2025).

Findings:

GAL Name	Cases Reviewed	Father Awarded Primary Custody	Mother Awarded Primary Custody
Alise Price	23	0 (0%)	21 (91%)
GAL A (control)	28	8 (29%)	15 (54%)
GAL B (control)	19	5 (26%)	11 (58%)
GAL C (control)	22	6 (27%)	13 (59%)

Conclusion: While Franklin County GALs generally favor mothers in contested custody cases (consistent with national trends), Alise Price's 0% rate of recommending fathers for primary custody is a statistical outlier that suggests systemic bias.

What Fathers Can Do

If Alise Price is appointed as GAL in your case, consider these steps:

File a motion to remove immediately if there are any conflicts of interest (e.g., professional relationship with opposing counsel).
Document everything: Record exact times of meetings, take notes on what was discussed, save all communications.
Provide evidence in writing: Don't rely on verbal statements. Submit all evidence to the GAL in writing with proof of delivery.
Request itemized billing: Demand to see exactly how your money is being spent.
File Ohio Bar grievance: Even if it's likely to be dismissed, create a paper trail documenting the pattern of bias.

Alise Price's Response

We reached out to Alise Price via email and certified mail requesting comment on the findings of this investigation. We provided specific case numbers, allegations, and statistical analysis. As of publication, we have received no response.

Conclusion: The System Protects Its Own

Alise Price is not an anomaly—she is a symptom of a broken system. GALs in Franklin County operate without meaningful oversight, judicial accountability, or consequences for bias.

Until Ohio implements mandatory GAL performance reviews, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and independent oversight, fathers will continue to be victimized by a system that profits from their pain.

This investigation is ongoing. If you have information about Alise Price or other Franklin County GALs, please contact our team. All sources are confidential.

Data Sources: Franklin County Domestic Relations Court case files (2020-2025), GAL reports obtained through discovery and public records requests, Ohio Bar Association grievance records, interviews with fathers and family law attorneys. Full methodology available upon request.