In Patton v. Patton (Jan. 9, 1995), Licking County App. 94-CA-40, 1995 Ohio App, the in-camera interviews of the minor children were, initially, not recorded. However, upon remand, the trial court conducted separate recorded interviews with each of the minor children, and thereafter entered a recommendation as to custody. The appellant in Patton appealed from said judgment and, inter alia, requested an opportunity to review the transcript of the in camera interviews, which the trial court denied. In affirming the decision of the trial court, we stated: "the interview is recorded for the purpose of protecting the parties in that an appellate court may review the recorded interviews and determine whether undue influence has been exerted, or whether the court has made proper findings of fact regarding the in chambers interviews. However, the legislative mandate that no person shall obtain from a child any recorded statement regarding the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities concerning such child clearly minimizes the chilling affect of the in chambers interview and provides a protection of the minor children. Moreover, the statute is now in conformity with the clear intent of the legislature in protecting the best interests of the children."