Line 6461 – This change would not allow a parent to get a police
report that may be necessary to protect the best interests of
their child.
Line 6469 – Throughout this bill, the sponsors have insisted upon
using “designated parent”; the section of ORC referred to uses
residential parent.
Line 6480 – I really do wonder what the obsession is with “legal
custodian” when it does not apply to this session.
Line 6433 – With full discretion, that finding of fact could be as
simple as, “Because I say so.”
Line 6486 – This is a repeat of Line 6480
Line 6488 – I still question how the sponsors intend to file contempt against someone who is not a party
to the case.
Line 6491 – How much effort are the employees of the center required to put forth to verify that they
have the most recent order? These orders are not online.
Line 6502 - I still question how the sponsors intend to file contempt against someone who is not a party
to the case. Since this has to be proven that there was “willfulness” and the third party has to say is “I
tried” to be found not guilty of the allegation.
Line 6506 - A parent’s access to a child’s school record is protected by federal law under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Line 6514 - I really do wonder what the obsession is with “legal custodian” when it does not apply to this
session.
Line 6520 - With full discretion, that finding of fact could be as simple as, “Because I say so.”
Line 6523 – This is a repeat of Line 6417
Line 6525 – I still question how the sponsors intend to file contempt against someone who is not a party
to the case.
Line 6528 – How much effort are the employees of the center required to put forth to verify that they
have the most recent order? These orders are not online.
Line 6552 - I still question how the sponsors intend to file contempt against someone who is not a party
to the case. Since this has to be proven that there was “willfulness” and the third party has to say is “I
tried” to be found not guilty of the allegation.
Line 6556 – As written, it looks like the sponsors mean that you have to include your consent or
instructions about whether you want to allow your minor child to go through transgender services.
Line 6570 – Conciliation is a specialized process that requires the parents to work with a specialist
attorney who has received special training. Unless the magistrate has taken those classes, they cannot
perform this process.
Line 6602 – This section only applies to cases pending in 1951. Really, this section needs to be removed
rather than modified.
Line 6653 – Domestic Relations courts can only certify a case to the Juvenile Court if there are
accusations of abuse or neglect.
Line 6661 – Odd placement is changed here, as this section is about judgments and damages to property
by a minor. Since it uses “Designated Parent” and limits that to the mother, it means that the father will
be solely responsible for payment of damages by the minor child.
Line 6665 – Designated parents is a term that chooses a superior position and authority for one of the
parents. In this section it is choose the female.
Line 6718 – There needs to be a better definition of what “reasonable” is. What is reasonable to one
party is unreasonable to another.
Lines 6744 – With the court having full discretion, it can satisfy this requirement with a “Because I felt so
or decided so”.
Line 6763 – A mother would not have to file as this section indicates, she is already the sole custodial
parent of the child.
Line 6782 – This limited application of when the fees are to be waived creates an unconstitutional
application of law. If you are going to wave for the original filing here, that has to be waved in all original
filings.
Line 6785 – May is full discretion. All relevant factors are vague and could include whether a party
shaves, dyes their hair, or has tattoos.
Line 6797 – Making and holding these hearings within thirty days will increase the cost of operating the
courts.
Line 6804 - Is the intent of this clause to encourage the request? Is this an ex parte filing?
Line 6809 – Reasonable is so broad that it could be anything from a day every two weeks to every other
week.
Line 6821 – With full discretion, a finding of facts could be a simple “Because I felt so.”
Line 6828 – Children’s Services are limited to involvement in abuse and neglect cases.
Line 6843 – This section is a part of Ohio’s presumption of equality and states what public policy is.
Unfortunately, as written, this bill goes against this stated policy and does more to break the bonds the
State wanted to happen, vs what level of control the judges want now.
Line 6895 – Redefining old orders to accommodate the designated parenting that was added throughout
this bill.
attorney who has received special training. Unless the magistrate has taken those classes, they cannot
perform this process.
Line 6602 – This section only applies to cases pending in 1951. Really, this section needs to be removed
rather than modified.
Line 6653 – Domestic Relations courts can only certify a case to the Juvenile Court if there are
accusations of abuse or neglect.
Line 6661 – Odd placement is changed here, as this section is about judgments and damages to property
by a minor. Since it uses “Designated Parent” and limits that to the mother, it means that the father will
be solely responsible for payment of damages by the minor child.
Line 6665 – Designated parents is a term that chooses a superior position and authority for one of the
parents. In this section it is choose the female.
Line 6718 – There needs to be a better definition of what “reasonable” is. What is reasonable to one
party is unreasonable to another.
Lines 6744 – With the court having full discretion, it can satisfy this requirement with a “Because I felt so
or decided so”.
Line 6763 – A mother would not have to file as this section indicates, she is already the sole custodial
parent of the child.
Line 6782 – This limited application of when the fees are to be waived creates an unconstitutional
application of law. If you are going to wave for the original filing here, that has to be waved in all original
filings.
Line 6785 – May is full discretion. All relevant factors are vague and could include whether a party
shaves, dyes their hair, or has tattoos.
Line 6797 – Making and holding these hearings within thirty days will increase the cost of operating the
courts.
Line 6804 - Is the intent of this clause to encourage the request? Is this an ex parte filing?
Line 6809 – Reasonable is so broad that it could be anything from a day every two weeks to every other
week.
Line 6821 – With full discretion, a finding of facts could be a simple “Because I felt so.”
Line 6828 – Children’s Services are limited to involvement in abuse and neglect cases.
Line 6843 – This section is a part of Ohio’s presumption of equality and states what public policy is.
Unfortunately, as written, this bill goes against this stated policy and does more to break the bonds the
State wanted to happen, vs what level of control the judges want now.
Line 6895 – Redefining old orders to accommodate the designated parenting that was added throughout
this bill.
Line 6913 – Frivolous change that means and changes nothing in the intent or context of the section.
Line 6919 - Frivolous change that means and changes nothing in the intent or context of the section.
Line 6924 - Frivolous change that means and changes nothing in the intent or context of the section.
Line 6934 – As rewritten, this would allow a child to decide whether or not they see the parent who
murdered the other parent.
Line 6950 - As rewritten, this would allow a convicted murderer to have visitation rights and be
responsible for the child from prison.
Line 6959 - Frivolous change that means and changes nothing in the intent or context of the section.
Line 6972 – There do exist times when a person needs to be appointed custodian of a child due to the
circumstances of the parent. This is often a temporary situation.
Line 6974 – A guardian appointed by the probate court is not always a parent of the child.
Line 6983 – Power of attorney changes that do nothing to the original process or intent. Designated
parent added to the section to replace residential parent.
Line 7257 - Designated parent added to the section to replace residential parent.
Line 7275 – If the parents are married, the addition of a legal custodian to the requirements means an
outsider to the family has a superior or equal right to make decisions about a power of attorney. That
includes a divorced couple that has an existing shared parenting plan.
Line 7300 – What are “reasonable efforts,” and what is needed to prove that they were taken to try to
locate the parent?
Line 7305 – Allows a total stranger to execute a power of attorney in place of the parents.
Line 7309 - Allows a total stranger to execute a power of attorney in place of the parents.
Line 7337 – I have raised an issue with this before; the sponsors and LSC drafter have put the cart ahead
of the cart by jumping to custody and visitation issues before doing the legal termination of the
relationship.
Line 7351 – Why are grandparents being required to notify a total stranger that they have ended a
power of attorney?
Line 7364 – Why are grandparents being required to notify a total stranger that they have ended a
power of attorney?
Line 7411 – I have explained what a “Legal Custodian” is numerous times and how they enter the life of
a child. I guess the sponsors and LSC drafter never looked that up, nor do they understand it. This
continues on lines 7452, 7461, 7465, 7470, 7491,7493
Line 7515 – The language changes here would require that the Ohio Supreme Court change the standard
form Affidavit 3.
Line 7556 – FERPA does not extend rights to non-parents.
Line 6919 - Frivolous change that means and changes nothing in the intent or context of the section.
Line 6924 - Frivolous change that means and changes nothing in the intent or context of the section.
Line 6934 – As rewritten, this would allow a child to decide whether or not they see the parent who
murdered the other parent.
Line 6950 - As rewritten, this would allow a convicted murderer to have visitation rights and be
responsible for the child from prison.
Line 6959 - Frivolous change that means and changes nothing in the intent or context of the section.
Line 6972 – There do exist times when a person needs to be appointed custodian of a child due to the
circumstances of the parent. This is often a temporary situation.
Line 6974 – A guardian appointed by the probate court is not always a parent of the child.
Line 6983 – Power of attorney changes that do nothing to the original process or intent. Designated
parent added to the section to replace residential parent.
Line 7257 - Designated parent added to the section to replace residential parent.
Line 7275 – If the parents are married, the addition of a legal custodian to the requirements means an
outsider to the family has a superior or equal right to make decisions about a power of attorney. That
includes a divorced couple that has an existing shared parenting plan.
Line 7300 – What are “reasonable efforts,” and what is needed to prove that they were taken to try to
locate the parent?
Line 7305 – Allows a total stranger to execute a power of attorney in place of the parents.
Line 7309 - Allows a total stranger to execute a power of attorney in place of the parents.
Line 7337 – I have raised an issue with this before; the sponsors and LSC drafter have put the cart ahead
of the cart by jumping to custody and visitation issues before doing the legal termination of the
relationship.
Line 7351 – Why are grandparents being required to notify a total stranger that they have ended a
power of attorney?
Line 7364 – Why are grandparents being required to notify a total stranger that they have ended a
power of attorney?
Line 7411 – I have explained what a “Legal Custodian” is numerous times and how they enter the life of
a child. I guess the sponsors and LSC drafter never looked that up, nor do they understand it. This
continues on lines 7452, 7461, 7465, 7470, 7491,7493
Line 7515 – The language changes here would require that the Ohio Supreme Court change the standard
form Affidavit 3.
Line 7556 – FERPA does not extend rights to non-parents.
Line 7587 – Why are the sponsors crossing the line here on HIPPA?
Line 7620 -- I have raised an issue with this before; the sponsors and LSC drafter have put the cart ahead
of the cart by jumping to custody and visitation issues before doing the legal termination of the
relationship.
Line 7635 – Nonparty again here as well, designated parent. Neither is relevant to what this section of
law is intended for.
Line 7675 - I have raised an issue with this before; the sponsors and LSC drafter have put the cart ahead
of the cart by jumping to a judgment on custody and visitation issues before the never-married father
has even filed to establish himself.
Line 7773 – Why is there a limitation that a father can only file for visitation, not for legal decision-
making?
Line 7786 – As written, this section sounds like an attempt to bring in a system similar to Michigan’s
Friend of the Court, where all custody and child support issues are decided by nonlegal personnel
administratively.
Line 8030 – Domestic violence restraining orders are often requested and granted on mere allegations
or claims of fear. While we need to protect children from domestic violence, as in this section, a change
of custody can be granted on mere allegations.
Line 8141 – This is a very slippery and costly slope when we are allowing a court to require a public
agency to step out of the bounds and perform duties that they are not equipped or manned to perform.
Line 8494 – The only place this comes into play is the 90-day clause in child support, which gives both
parents a 10% downward deviation from the guidelines tables.
Line 8668 – In split parenting, one child lives with one parent the majority of the time and visits with the
other, usually one weekend on, one weekend off. The situation flips for the other child.
Line 8679 – The only change is because of the use of “designated parent” that is used throughout this
bill.
Line 8725 – With child support currently being calculated solely on the income of the parents, this is a
moot section.
Line 8747 – Current software used by the courts, attorneys, and CSEA does not include the ability to do
this calculation. This is where a major expense would come in, as all of the aforementioned would have
to buy new versions of the software.
Line 8758 – Repeat of Line 8668.
Line 8763 – Child support is based on the income of all parties involved. It isn’t specified, so do we
presume that the caretaker also has to submit their financial information?
Line 8770 – Child support administrative orders are covered in the Administrative Code. There are limits
to when and how CSEA can modify a child support order. Generally, they are limited to more than 30%
change of income or when a child graduates from high school and has turned 18.
Line 7620 -- I have raised an issue with this before; the sponsors and LSC drafter have put the cart ahead
of the cart by jumping to custody and visitation issues before doing the legal termination of the
relationship.
Line 7635 – Nonparty again here as well, designated parent. Neither is relevant to what this section of
law is intended for.
Line 7675 - I have raised an issue with this before; the sponsors and LSC drafter have put the cart ahead
of the cart by jumping to a judgment on custody and visitation issues before the never-married father
has even filed to establish himself.
Line 7773 – Why is there a limitation that a father can only file for visitation, not for legal decision-
making?
Line 7786 – As written, this section sounds like an attempt to bring in a system similar to Michigan’s
Friend of the Court, where all custody and child support issues are decided by nonlegal personnel
administratively.
Line 8030 – Domestic violence restraining orders are often requested and granted on mere allegations
or claims of fear. While we need to protect children from domestic violence, as in this section, a change
of custody can be granted on mere allegations.
Line 8141 – This is a very slippery and costly slope when we are allowing a court to require a public
agency to step out of the bounds and perform duties that they are not equipped or manned to perform.
Line 8494 – The only place this comes into play is the 90-day clause in child support, which gives both
parents a 10% downward deviation from the guidelines tables.
Line 8668 – In split parenting, one child lives with one parent the majority of the time and visits with the
other, usually one weekend on, one weekend off. The situation flips for the other child.
Line 8679 – The only change is because of the use of “designated parent” that is used throughout this
bill.
Line 8725 – With child support currently being calculated solely on the income of the parents, this is a
moot section.
Line 8747 – Current software used by the courts, attorneys, and CSEA does not include the ability to do
this calculation. This is where a major expense would come in, as all of the aforementioned would have
to buy new versions of the software.
Line 8758 – Repeat of Line 8668.
Line 8763 – Child support is based on the income of all parties involved. It isn’t specified, so do we
presume that the caretaker also has to submit their financial information?
Line 8770 – Child support administrative orders are covered in the Administrative Code. There are limits
to when and how CSEA can modify a child support order. Generally, they are limited to more than 30%
change of income or when a child graduates from high school and has turned 18.