Line 5225 – Sponsors and LSC drafter are again confusing children’s services cases and custody between
two fit parents.
Line 5233 – Fails to state how this will be determined and who is responsible for reporting this to the
court.
Line 5241 – Fails to allow a parent to request a guardian ad litem and places the decision solely with the
court. Fails to state who will pay the cost of the guardian ad litem and if those costs are to be divided
equally between the parents or proportionally based on the time the GAL spends with each parent and
the children.
Line 5245 – Falls to state if that candor is to come from an unbiased position.
Line 5248 – This is covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, but as written, requires that all filings and
notices be served upon the GAL by certified mail, or personal service by the local sheriff or a process
server.
Line 5253 – Fails to allow a parent to motion or request an attorney for the child when there exists a
conflict between what the GAL suggests and what the child desires.
Line 5259 – All attorneys are required to provide a fee agreement that designates the hourly rate and
the schedule of payment. Generally, all attorneys will not check if the parent has the ability to pay, and if
they cannot, will file to withdraw from the case for lack of payment. They also
charge the party for filing that motion to withdraw.
Line 5262 – Fails to state if the fees are appropriated by time with the respective
parent. The last statement of any other compensation is vague at best and would
have to be included and limited to what is in the original fee schedule.
Line 5264 – Fee agreements are between the parent and the attorney, not the parents. A separate
motion would have to be filed by a party for reimbursement or to have the other parent pay their legal
fees. To get that, a parent has to show that the other party acted with “dirty hands” during the
proceedings.
Line 5266 – Would be in the original fee agreement.
Line 5267 – There exists no authority for a court to modify a fee schedule between a parent and an
attorney. They have a private agreement between the client and the attorney.
Line 5269 – As written, this requires that all filings be served upon the attorney for the child by personal
service, a process server, by certified mail, or any other method contained within the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Line 5274 - Attorneys for a child are appointed when a conflict exists between the GAL’s suggestions and
the child’s wishes.
Line 5279 – This is a frivolous section since procedures and definitions of a change of residence were
previously defined.
Line 5281 – The lack of a date specifying when the intent to change address or relocate is to take place.
It has to be filed in advance of the move so the other party can object if they wish.
Line 5284 – Needs a specification that the notice is mailed the same day or the next day after the filing is
made.
Line 5286 – Current law is 30 days before the relocation is going to happen. Fails to give a same of or
define what “exigent circumstances” are acceptable.
Line 5292 – The requirements listed in this section are contrary to the law in Ohio that allows a party to
keep such information private. ORC 111.43 lists the reasons why and who may have the confidential
information.
Line 5302 - The requirements listed in this section are contrary to the law in Ohio that allows a party to
keep such information private. ORC 111.43 lists the reasons why and who may have the confidential
information. Failure to provide the other party with a copy of the filing with the address redacted would
prohibit due process from taking place and prevent the other party from objecting to the move.
Line 5316 – Failure to provide a hearing to respond to an ex parte filing would be contrary to due
process protections provided un the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
Line 5320 – The “may” should be “shall” to protect the due process requirements and bring the offender
before the court for a full explanation of their actions.
Line 5328 – Ordering the return of the child is one of the few common-sense items within this section.
This is especially true if the moving party left the jurisdiction of the court that issued the original order.
Line 5331 – It is unclear if this would require a separate filing of a Show Cause or if the court intends to
make the finding as a direct contempt.
Line 5332 – It is unclear as to what is considered “good cause” in this section.
Line 5336 – It is unclear as to how much detail the non-relocating party must go into to support their
objections to the move. It is also unclear as to what evidentiary standard the court is to use in making its
determination.
Line 5341 – SOP under the Rules of Civil Procedure. As I previously stated, the clerk of the court needs to
send the notice with expediency.
Line 5345 – Needs to be a specific number of days and needs a specific number of days in which the
court returns its decision after the hearing.
Line 5349 – This section lacks an evidentiary standard by which the factors are reviewed.
Line 5357 – Are the parents required to submit proposed new custody plans? It is not clear whether or
not that filing must be done in these relocation filings.
Line 5361 – Would this require further involvement of evaluators, a GAL, or an attorney for the child? Is
their involvement based on the distance of the move? Clarity is much needed here.
Line 5361 – Is extended family and as what is the definition of extended family, going to be allowed to
also object to the move despite not being a party to the case?
Line 5363 – How much proof will be required to show that there would be an “enhancement “ of life?
made.
Line 5286 – Current law is 30 days before the relocation is going to happen. Fails to give a same of or
define what “exigent circumstances” are acceptable.
Line 5292 – The requirements listed in this section are contrary to the law in Ohio that allows a party to
keep such information private. ORC 111.43 lists the reasons why and who may have the confidential
information.
Line 5302 - The requirements listed in this section are contrary to the law in Ohio that allows a party to
keep such information private. ORC 111.43 lists the reasons why and who may have the confidential
information. Failure to provide the other party with a copy of the filing with the address redacted would
prohibit due process from taking place and prevent the other party from objecting to the move.
Line 5316 – Failure to provide a hearing to respond to an ex parte filing would be contrary to due
process protections provided un the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
Line 5320 – The “may” should be “shall” to protect the due process requirements and bring the offender
before the court for a full explanation of their actions.
Line 5328 – Ordering the return of the child is one of the few common-sense items within this section.
This is especially true if the moving party left the jurisdiction of the court that issued the original order.
Line 5331 – It is unclear if this would require a separate filing of a Show Cause or if the court intends to
make the finding as a direct contempt.
Line 5332 – It is unclear as to what is considered “good cause” in this section.
Line 5336 – It is unclear as to how much detail the non-relocating party must go into to support their
objections to the move. It is also unclear as to what evidentiary standard the court is to use in making its
determination.
Line 5341 – SOP under the Rules of Civil Procedure. As I previously stated, the clerk of the court needs to
send the notice with expediency.
Line 5345 – Needs to be a specific number of days and needs a specific number of days in which the
court returns its decision after the hearing.
Line 5349 – This section lacks an evidentiary standard by which the factors are reviewed.
Line 5357 – Are the parents required to submit proposed new custody plans? It is not clear whether or
not that filing must be done in these relocation filings.
Line 5361 – Would this require further involvement of evaluators, a GAL, or an attorney for the child? Is
their involvement based on the distance of the move? Clarity is much needed here.
Line 5361 – Is extended family and as what is the definition of extended family, going to be allowed to
also object to the move despite not being a party to the case?
Line 5363 – How much proof will be required to show that there would be an “enhancement “ of life?
Line 5367 – What is the stability of the child based on? There is no clarity as to what it is and what
considerations it shall be given.
Line 5368 – Overly broad factor
Line 5369 begins major changes to Ohio’s Military Deployment custody and visitation section. I may
be to only active party that knows the full story behind why these changes were first made, who the
parties were, and what their positions were that brought this to the attention of the legislature, and
then why a second round of changes to the laws and who supported it in the legislature.
Ohio is currently lagging greatly behind what has changed in other states, especially what Nebraska
has done.
Line 5371 – Very confusing definitions in this section. I am trying to figure out what is meant by calling
up someone for “including any period of illness” and why it was included when the section also contains
“recovery from injury”. Leave is time off while deployed or while in active service to the country, not a
condition of call-up.
Line 5379 – I had to look up the commissioned corps of the health service. As a short description, these
are members of active military branches and “first responders” who focus on public health. It would fall
under the active military branch clause and is unnecessary to list separately.
Line 5383 - Unnecessary section that should have been included in the next section. Does not say by
what method they are to inform the other party. The timeline for notification, as listed, is impossible to
meet by anyone in the military or reserve.
I asked a reserve Navy Commander and was given several sets of timelines that are dependent on
various conditions.
So, the Federal Government is obligated to give service members a minimum of 90 days' notice. The
member can waive that right.
I’ve never told anyone about my report date until I get orders in hand. So, they can tell you 90 days out.
You may wait 30 days until you have orders in hand. Then you have to read your orders. It will tell you
what your obligations are and your entitlements. The recall code is important. But they always mark
everyone involuntarily these days.
If you’re marked voluntary, you don’t have the same protections and benefits normally such as
differential pay.
Now you can know your deployment orders years in advance. You see this a lot with unit-wide orders. For
example, there may be four armor divisions reserve side in the Army Reserve. The Army deploys one for a
year, and has 6 months of workups for deployment. You know that you will be gone for 18 months once
every 4 years.
And your six-month spin-up will start halfway through the deployment for the org you’re relieving. Not
everyone is this lucky, though, and it depends on your MOS/Rating and how the DoD needs you. Often
referred to as subject to the needs of the service.
You then have dwell time, usually three months for every month deployed from Individual mobility.
considerations it shall be given.
Line 5368 – Overly broad factor
Line 5369 begins major changes to Ohio’s Military Deployment custody and visitation section. I may
be to only active party that knows the full story behind why these changes were first made, who the
parties were, and what their positions were that brought this to the attention of the legislature, and
then why a second round of changes to the laws and who supported it in the legislature.
Ohio is currently lagging greatly behind what has changed in other states, especially what Nebraska
has done.
Line 5371 – Very confusing definitions in this section. I am trying to figure out what is meant by calling
up someone for “including any period of illness” and why it was included when the section also contains
“recovery from injury”. Leave is time off while deployed or while in active service to the country, not a
condition of call-up.
Line 5379 – I had to look up the commissioned corps of the health service. As a short description, these
are members of active military branches and “first responders” who focus on public health. It would fall
under the active military branch clause and is unnecessary to list separately.
Line 5383 - Unnecessary section that should have been included in the next section. Does not say by
what method they are to inform the other party. The timeline for notification, as listed, is impossible to
meet by anyone in the military or reserve.
I asked a reserve Navy Commander and was given several sets of timelines that are dependent on
various conditions.
So, the Federal Government is obligated to give service members a minimum of 90 days' notice. The
member can waive that right.
I’ve never told anyone about my report date until I get orders in hand. So, they can tell you 90 days out.
You may wait 30 days until you have orders in hand. Then you have to read your orders. It will tell you
what your obligations are and your entitlements. The recall code is important. But they always mark
everyone involuntarily these days.
If you’re marked voluntary, you don’t have the same protections and benefits normally such as
differential pay.
Now you can know your deployment orders years in advance. You see this a lot with unit-wide orders. For
example, there may be four armor divisions reserve side in the Army Reserve. The Army deploys one for a
year, and has 6 months of workups for deployment. You know that you will be gone for 18 months once
every 4 years.
And your six-month spin-up will start halfway through the deployment for the org you’re relieving. Not
everyone is this lucky, though, and it depends on your MOS/Rating and how the DoD needs you. Often
referred to as subject to the needs of the service.
You then have dwell time, usually three months for every month deployed from Individual mobility.
Not applicable to unit-level deployments.
This also differs from Annual Training, or Schools that have no definite recall.
Are there any specific details or branches you need? I can pull publications that go into Title 10
entitlements and protections.
Line 5388 – If you read the above, it is clear that this is impossible to comply with and often premature.
Line 5395 – This is a premature hearing and adds costs to the operation of the court. Having to give
priority would cause delays in other cases.
Line 5401 – While this clause has been present since the first time deployment rights were passed in
Ohio, it is in conflict with the next section.
Line 5405 – As I said, this section and the previous one do have conflicts with each other. The previous
sections say that service can’t be held against someone who is in the service of our nation, yet this one
does allow that by changing the current custody order. Yes, arrangements and minor changes need to
occur, but not a full and new order, temporary or not.
Line 5411 – May is overly broad and could include anything that the court wishes in its discretion to
throw into a temporary order. A temporary order sets up a status quo that courts are reluctant to
change down the road.
Line 5413 – As worded, this allows for a non-family member to be awarded the “parenting time” of the
deployed individual. Close family members are one this but certainly not a non-family member.
Line 5416 – “Reasonably available” is vague as to what amount of time the deployed party would be
allowed to spend with their child while on leave. What is reasonable to one person may not be
reasonable to someone else.
Line 5419 – As written, this would dictate that military policy about communications through phone or
computer be changed.
Line 5422 – Does not state how the court is notified that the deployment has ended. Does not state
what must be shown to object to the return of the original order by the party that opposes it.
Line 5429 – It is unclear and unstated whether the participation is to follow military protocol or the Ohio
Rules of Procedure and Rules of the Ohio Supreme Court with control. Out-of-country communication
rules can be very restrictive, depending on what mission the deployed party is on.
Line 5437 – As written, this requires that all parties, including that mysterious other party, make
notification to the Court and CSEA.
Line 5444 – This is in direct conflict with the previous sections that recognize “any other party”. By
adding and allowing “any other party” to participate standing was created.
Line 5450 – This is a description of a contempt order. It was done before in this bill.
This also differs from Annual Training, or Schools that have no definite recall.
Are there any specific details or branches you need? I can pull publications that go into Title 10
entitlements and protections.
Line 5388 – If you read the above, it is clear that this is impossible to comply with and often premature.
Line 5395 – This is a premature hearing and adds costs to the operation of the court. Having to give
priority would cause delays in other cases.
Line 5401 – While this clause has been present since the first time deployment rights were passed in
Ohio, it is in conflict with the next section.
Line 5405 – As I said, this section and the previous one do have conflicts with each other. The previous
sections say that service can’t be held against someone who is in the service of our nation, yet this one
does allow that by changing the current custody order. Yes, arrangements and minor changes need to
occur, but not a full and new order, temporary or not.
Line 5411 – May is overly broad and could include anything that the court wishes in its discretion to
throw into a temporary order. A temporary order sets up a status quo that courts are reluctant to
change down the road.
Line 5413 – As worded, this allows for a non-family member to be awarded the “parenting time” of the
deployed individual. Close family members are one this but certainly not a non-family member.
Line 5416 – “Reasonably available” is vague as to what amount of time the deployed party would be
allowed to spend with their child while on leave. What is reasonable to one person may not be
reasonable to someone else.
Line 5419 – As written, this would dictate that military policy about communications through phone or
computer be changed.
Line 5422 – Does not state how the court is notified that the deployment has ended. Does not state
what must be shown to object to the return of the original order by the party that opposes it.
Line 5429 – It is unclear and unstated whether the participation is to follow military protocol or the Ohio
Rules of Procedure and Rules of the Ohio Supreme Court with control. Out-of-country communication
rules can be very restrictive, depending on what mission the deployed party is on.
Line 5437 – As written, this requires that all parties, including that mysterious other party, make
notification to the Court and CSEA.
Line 5444 – This is in direct conflict with the previous sections that recognize “any other party”. By
adding and allowing “any other party” to participate standing was created.
Line 5450 – This is a description of a contempt order. It was done before in this bill.