Line 5454 – Date originally ordered by the court.
Line 5456 – Does this mean that the party needs to attach the original parenting time order, which
would already be within the case file?
Line 5458 – It is unclear if this also includes the dates and the hours of the day that the order was not
followed.
Line 5461 – Vague description of what efforts need to be shown by the party that is filing the “Show
Cause” motion. When a Show Cause is filed currently, included is an Affidavit supporting the allegations
is included.
Line 5463 – Relief was, as always, dictated by the law. With a description given as “any relief requested,”
I have to wonder how far some might push that.
Line 5464 – Moving this contempt procedure to a priority filing will clog the docket and either delay
other cases or mean the courts will have to hire more personnel.
Line 5467 – The sponsors and drafter are confusing a change of custody with a purge order that is often
given as a condition when a show cause is first heard by the court. Failure to follow the purge would
show the willfulness of disobedience, while following the purge gives a
party to reduce their punishment.
Line 5472 – After hearing the instruction on the contempt.
Line 5476 – Would this change in the order have to be included in the
original filing, or is this another example of the broad discretion the
sponsors want to give judges over Ohio families?
Line 5479 – While this fits with this limited contempt procedure, does it
require another filing under this section if the offending party fails to
provide the compensatory time as instructed?
Line 5481 - Would this change in the order have to be included in the original filing, or is this another
example of the broad discretion the sponsors want to give judges over Ohio families?
Line 5483 - Would this change in the order have to be included in the original filing, or is this another
example of the broad discretion the sponsors want to give judges over Ohio families?
Line 5488 - Would the request for these services need to be included in the original filing, or is this
another example of the broad discretion the sponsors want to give judges over Ohio families?
Line 5492 – Would this remedy include jail time, as it was before under contempt proceedings?
Line 5502 – Fails to state what evidentiary standard is to be used to determine that there is or was a
relationship. As written, it fails to give the courts any instruction on how to proceed once the motion is
filed.
Line 5512 – If an order previously existed, there would be no need to file for approval of the previous
order unless there was a motion to modify the old order.
Line 5519 – ORC 3109.04 was labeled as “Allocating parental rights and responsibilities for care of
children - shared parenting.” With the keywords being “Shared Parenting”. It first became law in 1981.
This bill removes that option from Ohio law to create a cookie-cutter approach to families, even the
intact ones.
Line 5535 – With shared parenting, it was the parents who had the ability to decide how they were
going to raise their children after the dissolution of the family or relationship. While some choose to
negotiate the terms, others choose to litigate their case and let the court make the decision. The plans
used were flexible to an extent yet detailed enough to describe the allocations of “Physical Custody
(Time child spends with the parent) and the “Legal Custody (Decisions, such as school, medical,
healthcare)”. Not all plans were split down the middle and it ther courts did them the most common
outcome was one parent being reduced to being an “every other weekend with a mid-week visit on the
off week visotr.”
Line 5541 – There is no mention of a designated parent in ORC 3109.04. The term residential is used, but
for assigning where the child goes to school, which district receives the taxes for that child’s residence,
and for the collection of welfare benefits.
Line 5548 – The drafter again confuses the process that they are changing. Stricken are ways that a
married family can file with the court to legally end their relationship. That needs to be done before any
allocations of rights and responsibilities can take place. Child support is a consideration, but that is
based on the income of both parents, not the time spent wth the child.
Line 5582 – Totally unnecessary rewording as it did not change the overall content or instructions for the
court.
Line 5594 - The drafter again confuses the process that they are changing. Stricken are ways that a
married family can file with the court to legally end their relationship. That needs to be done before any
allocations of rights and responsibilities can take place. This section adds the mediation to the mix,
except that, as noted before, there were multiple mediation services added to this legislation, which will
only extend the litigation and greatly increase the cost of ending a personal relationship. As written, this
would allow a convicted child abuser to attempt to negotiate custody of their child and only base this on
“allegations of domestic violence,” not convictions of a criminal act.
Line 5669 – Unnecessary change in language as to changed nothing in the intent or the process involved.
Line 5686 – The removal of this section would not allow the parents to mediate or negotiate how they
want to approach custody and visitation after the divorce ends, as legal obligations as an intact family.
Line 5699 – This section is a rewrite of the current third-party visitation section of law. The sponsors and
LSC Drafter are again confused are to what a “kindship caregiver” is. They are someone who “hosts” as a
child if their parents are charged with abuse or neglect. As written, this section also allows someone
who merely “likes” a child to file for visitation time with the child.
The confused use of terms continues through this entire section.
Line 5716 – It is unclear what the sponsors and LSC drafter mean here, as a motion for companionship
or visitation would have been filed to begin the process.
children - shared parenting.” With the keywords being “Shared Parenting”. It first became law in 1981.
This bill removes that option from Ohio law to create a cookie-cutter approach to families, even the
intact ones.
Line 5535 – With shared parenting, it was the parents who had the ability to decide how they were
going to raise their children after the dissolution of the family or relationship. While some choose to
negotiate the terms, others choose to litigate their case and let the court make the decision. The plans
used were flexible to an extent yet detailed enough to describe the allocations of “Physical Custody
(Time child spends with the parent) and the “Legal Custody (Decisions, such as school, medical,
healthcare)”. Not all plans were split down the middle and it ther courts did them the most common
outcome was one parent being reduced to being an “every other weekend with a mid-week visit on the
off week visotr.”
Line 5541 – There is no mention of a designated parent in ORC 3109.04. The term residential is used, but
for assigning where the child goes to school, which district receives the taxes for that child’s residence,
and for the collection of welfare benefits.
Line 5548 – The drafter again confuses the process that they are changing. Stricken are ways that a
married family can file with the court to legally end their relationship. That needs to be done before any
allocations of rights and responsibilities can take place. Child support is a consideration, but that is
based on the income of both parents, not the time spent wth the child.
Line 5582 – Totally unnecessary rewording as it did not change the overall content or instructions for the
court.
Line 5594 - The drafter again confuses the process that they are changing. Stricken are ways that a
married family can file with the court to legally end their relationship. That needs to be done before any
allocations of rights and responsibilities can take place. This section adds the mediation to the mix,
except that, as noted before, there were multiple mediation services added to this legislation, which will
only extend the litigation and greatly increase the cost of ending a personal relationship. As written, this
would allow a convicted child abuser to attempt to negotiate custody of their child and only base this on
“allegations of domestic violence,” not convictions of a criminal act.
Line 5669 – Unnecessary change in language as to changed nothing in the intent or the process involved.
Line 5686 – The removal of this section would not allow the parents to mediate or negotiate how they
want to approach custody and visitation after the divorce ends, as legal obligations as an intact family.
Line 5699 – This section is a rewrite of the current third-party visitation section of law. The sponsors and
LSC Drafter are again confused are to what a “kindship caregiver” is. They are someone who “hosts” as a
child if their parents are charged with abuse or neglect. As written, this section also allows someone
who merely “likes” a child to file for visitation time with the child.
The confused use of terms continues through this entire section.
Line 5716 – It is unclear what the sponsors and LSC drafter mean here, as a motion for companionship
or visitation would have been filed to begin the process.
Line 5723 – It is unclear if dispute resolution would be ordered by the court or requested by the parties
involved. While mediation reports can’t be used, dispute resolution reports can be. Again, showing with
the wording, is the mysterious “all relevant factors”.
Line 5735 – Again, the sponsors and LSC drafter confuse what “kinship caregivers” are. I have explained
this numerous times before.
Line 5740 – Again with this notation that someone who is to be considered and fathered in to these
proceedings merely “likes” and child. As worded, that now the term is now extended to someone who is
a sibling of the child in question.
Line 5744 – As worded, this now allows a court to decide or deny a request simply because they don’t
like where a parent lives.
Line 5747 – While it is important to consider a child's school schedule to ensure that their educational
needs are met, this consideration of a person's work schedule will create problems for first responders
and “off shift” workers who work schedules that are outside of the considered 9 to 5 schedule.
Considering a child’s and a person’s holiday schedule does not factor in or consider the holidays that
different religions have.
Line 5751 – Using this as a factor would deny a grandparent or qualified person simply because the child
is too young or old, based on the discretion of the court.
Line 5752 – What is the standard of review for this?
Line 5753 – This section is only applicable if the child has been interviewed “in camera”. The unfortunate
thing is that courts usually wait until after the trial has taken place. If interviewed before, the parents
would have a better understanding of what is happening in the case.
Line 5759 – What is the evidentiary standard to be used here? Are medical professionals to testify about
the child’s health? Are first responders being used to discuss safety?
Line 5760 – Is the person who files under this allowed to “cherry pick” which of the children they seek
time with?
Line 5762 – What type of reports are to be used, and from whom will this information be gathered? Will
a parent’s rights under HIPPA be protected?
Line 5763 – This is a completely backward factor. A person filing under this is free because they are
seeking time with a child that they have been denied. The filing parent is not the one denying time with
the child.
Line 5765 – This information is required to be disclosed by anyone seeking time with a child. The
standard forms used and provided by the Ohio Supreme Court require this disclosure.
Line 5775 – As I have stated before, a “legal custodian” is someone who is appointed by the probate
court to handle the affairs of a disabled child who has reached maturity and cannot handle their own
affairs.
Line 5777 – Overly vague as to what these factors are.
involved. While mediation reports can’t be used, dispute resolution reports can be. Again, showing with
the wording, is the mysterious “all relevant factors”.
Line 5735 – Again, the sponsors and LSC drafter confuse what “kinship caregivers” are. I have explained
this numerous times before.
Line 5740 – Again with this notation that someone who is to be considered and fathered in to these
proceedings merely “likes” and child. As worded, that now the term is now extended to someone who is
a sibling of the child in question.
Line 5744 – As worded, this now allows a court to decide or deny a request simply because they don’t
like where a parent lives.
Line 5747 – While it is important to consider a child's school schedule to ensure that their educational
needs are met, this consideration of a person's work schedule will create problems for first responders
and “off shift” workers who work schedules that are outside of the considered 9 to 5 schedule.
Considering a child’s and a person’s holiday schedule does not factor in or consider the holidays that
different religions have.
Line 5751 – Using this as a factor would deny a grandparent or qualified person simply because the child
is too young or old, based on the discretion of the court.
Line 5752 – What is the standard of review for this?
Line 5753 – This section is only applicable if the child has been interviewed “in camera”. The unfortunate
thing is that courts usually wait until after the trial has taken place. If interviewed before, the parents
would have a better understanding of what is happening in the case.
Line 5759 – What is the evidentiary standard to be used here? Are medical professionals to testify about
the child’s health? Are first responders being used to discuss safety?
Line 5760 – Is the person who files under this allowed to “cherry pick” which of the children they seek
time with?
Line 5762 – What type of reports are to be used, and from whom will this information be gathered? Will
a parent’s rights under HIPPA be protected?
Line 5763 – This is a completely backward factor. A person filing under this is free because they are
seeking time with a child that they have been denied. The filing parent is not the one denying time with
the child.
Line 5765 – This information is required to be disclosed by anyone seeking time with a child. The
standard forms used and provided by the Ohio Supreme Court require this disclosure.
Line 5775 – As I have stated before, a “legal custodian” is someone who is appointed by the probate
court to handle the affairs of a disabled child who has reached maturity and cannot handle their own
affairs.
Line 5777 – Overly vague as to what these factors are.
Line 5778 – In camera interview, which was previously discussed, except that instead of the parties filing
for the interview, the court is being allowed to do is based on its own discretion.
Line 5782 – Location will factor heavily into the child’s willingness to speak freely. It will also affect how
seriously this interview process is taken by the child.
Line 5785 – What information is used to determine if the child has sufficient reasoning ability, and what
are the “special” circumstances that are to be considered, or are these to be determined at the
discretion of the court?
Line 5791 – Would the necessary court personnel include a court stenographer or reporter? Or is the
interview to be done with the use of a recording device that can fail or be turned on and off by the
person who controls the “button”?
Line 5797 – The only common-sense item in this bill. Cookie cutter question from the judge will not
allow the child to express their true thoughts to the court.
Line 5801 – As written, this would not allow the Ohio Supreme Court to have the recordings of the in
camera interview. That would deny the highest court in Ohio from pertinent and relevant information
that they need to render and decision on a case before them.
Line 5804 – Already in Ohio law, just moved to a different section.
Line 5811 – Again, the sponsors and LSC drafter confuse what a “kindship caregiver” is. I have explained
this before. As written, the use of “any other person” would allow a total stranger to be considered for
companionship or visitation.
Line 5816 – With the full discretion that is given to the court, it would take nothing more than “because I
say so” to support their alleged findings of fact.
Line 5820 – This section is an attempt to rewrite public records law under the guise of a bill about how
custody decisions are made.
Line 6420 – This section lacks an evidentiary standard by which this decision is made. A parent’s access
to a child’s school record is protected by federal law under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act.
Line 6426 - A parent’s access to a child’s school record is protected by federal law under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Line 6437 – A record keeper would not be a party to the case, and I have to wonder under what
authority the sponsors that a non-party to a case can be held in contempt.
Line 6440 - A parent’s access to a child’s school record is protected by federal law under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Line 6452 – How far must the record keeper go to ensure that they have the most recent court order?
All court records that involve custody of a child are hidden from public view online.
Line 6457 - A record keeper would not be a party to the case, and I have to wonder under what
authority the sponsors intend to use a non-party to a case, which can be held in contempt.
for the interview, the court is being allowed to do is based on its own discretion.
Line 5782 – Location will factor heavily into the child’s willingness to speak freely. It will also affect how
seriously this interview process is taken by the child.
Line 5785 – What information is used to determine if the child has sufficient reasoning ability, and what
are the “special” circumstances that are to be considered, or are these to be determined at the
discretion of the court?
Line 5791 – Would the necessary court personnel include a court stenographer or reporter? Or is the
interview to be done with the use of a recording device that can fail or be turned on and off by the
person who controls the “button”?
Line 5797 – The only common-sense item in this bill. Cookie cutter question from the judge will not
allow the child to express their true thoughts to the court.
Line 5801 – As written, this would not allow the Ohio Supreme Court to have the recordings of the in
camera interview. That would deny the highest court in Ohio from pertinent and relevant information
that they need to render and decision on a case before them.
Line 5804 – Already in Ohio law, just moved to a different section.
Line 5811 – Again, the sponsors and LSC drafter confuse what a “kindship caregiver” is. I have explained
this before. As written, the use of “any other person” would allow a total stranger to be considered for
companionship or visitation.
Line 5816 – With the full discretion that is given to the court, it would take nothing more than “because I
say so” to support their alleged findings of fact.
Line 5820 – This section is an attempt to rewrite public records law under the guise of a bill about how
custody decisions are made.
Line 6420 – This section lacks an evidentiary standard by which this decision is made. A parent’s access
to a child’s school record is protected by federal law under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act.
Line 6426 - A parent’s access to a child’s school record is protected by federal law under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Line 6437 – A record keeper would not be a party to the case, and I have to wonder under what
authority the sponsors that a non-party to a case can be held in contempt.
Line 6440 - A parent’s access to a child’s school record is protected by federal law under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Line 6452 – How far must the record keeper go to ensure that they have the most recent court order?
All court records that involve custody of a child are hidden from public view online.
Line 6457 - A record keeper would not be a party to the case, and I have to wonder under what
authority the sponsors intend to use a non-party to a case, which can be held in contempt.