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 8775 – How is this going to be done? DNA? Affidavit?
Line 8777 – With child support being calculated on the income of the parties, the “agency” would also
have to submit its full financial information for the past 3 years. That information would not be limited
to the case at hand; it is inclusive of all cases, all reimbursements, money from the county budget, and
money from or portion of Health and Human Services levies that they receive money from.
Line 8779 – Everything in the comments about Line 8777 is included on the worksheet.
Line 8789 – The changes change or affect nothing with child support calculations.
Line 8828 – When claiming a child for tax purposes, the IRS considers the home where the minor lays
their head upon a pillow as the one eligible for the deductions. Ohio’s tax code follows this basic
premise. Changing to “designated” parent rather than residential parent will cause tax problems. If the
parents alternate claiming the child, the federal form that must be filed with the return would have to
be changed by the federal government. Ohio has no authority to ask for such a change.
Line 8855 – The only change is to accommodate the change from residential to designated parent.
Line 8867 – This section conflicts with the section that states that a never-married father could not file
for time with their child.
Line 8886 – The changes in this section will affect the Title IV reimbursement
program. Federal law controls the provisions of that program, not the state.
Line 8902 - The changes in this section will affect the Title IV reimbursement
program. Federal law controls the provisions of that program, not the state.
Line 8921 – Changes here will affect the ability of the tax department to do tax
return intercepts for the collection of back child support.
Line 8935 – UCCJEA is a compact that all states have entered into that recognizes “foreign orders,” i.e.,
orders concerning custody and visitation that were issued by another state. The use of a designated
rather than residential parent, which is used by other states, will mean that Ohio has to withdraw from
that compact.
Line 9017 - The use of a designated rather than residential parent, which is used by other states, will
mean that Ohio has to withdraw from the UCCJEA compact.
Line 9047 – Changes here would require that the Ohio Supreme Court change Standard Form “Affidavit
#3”.
Line 9180 – That changes here go against FERPA and would prevent children with an IEP from receiving
those specialized school programs that deal with their IEP. There are additional dollars provided to the
schools for running these programs.
Line 9298 – Changes here would prevent to parent that is not the designated parent from receiving
notice if the child is absent without excuse from school. FERPA controls what information a parent is to
receive, absent an order otherwise from the court.
Line 9314 – Changes made here are solely to insert the word “designated” instead of residential parent.
Line 8777 – With child support being calculated on the income of the parties, the “agency” would also
have to submit its full financial information for the past 3 years. That information would not be limited
to the case at hand; it is inclusive of all cases, all reimbursements, money from the county budget, and
money from or portion of Health and Human Services levies that they receive money from.
Line 8779 – Everything in the comments about Line 8777 is included on the worksheet.
Line 8789 – The changes change or affect nothing with child support calculations.
Line 8828 – When claiming a child for tax purposes, the IRS considers the home where the minor lays
their head upon a pillow as the one eligible for the deductions. Ohio’s tax code follows this basic
premise. Changing to “designated” parent rather than residential parent will cause tax problems. If the
parents alternate claiming the child, the federal form that must be filed with the return would have to
be changed by the federal government. Ohio has no authority to ask for such a change.
Line 8855 – The only change is to accommodate the change from residential to designated parent.
Line 8867 – This section conflicts with the section that states that a never-married father could not file
for time with their child.
Line 8886 – The changes in this section will affect the Title IV reimbursement
program. Federal law controls the provisions of that program, not the state.
Line 8902 - The changes in this section will affect the Title IV reimbursement
program. Federal law controls the provisions of that program, not the state.
Line 8921 – Changes here will affect the ability of the tax department to do tax
return intercepts for the collection of back child support.
Line 8935 – UCCJEA is a compact that all states have entered into that recognizes “foreign orders,” i.e.,
orders concerning custody and visitation that were issued by another state. The use of a designated
rather than residential parent, which is used by other states, will mean that Ohio has to withdraw from
that compact.
Line 9017 - The use of a designated rather than residential parent, which is used by other states, will
mean that Ohio has to withdraw from the UCCJEA compact.
Line 9047 – Changes here would require that the Ohio Supreme Court change Standard Form “Affidavit
#3”.
Line 9180 – That changes here go against FERPA and would prevent children with an IEP from receiving
those specialized school programs that deal with their IEP. There are additional dollars provided to the
schools for running these programs.
Line 9298 – Changes here would prevent to parent that is not the designated parent from receiving
notice if the child is absent without excuse from school. FERPA controls what information a parent is to
receive, absent an order otherwise from the court.
Line 9314 – Changes made here are solely to insert the word “designated” instead of residential parent.
Line 9977 – FERPA controls this and is for parents only.
Line 10145 – The cart is ahead of the horse again here; the dissolving of the relationship has to come
first before there can be any allocation of parental rights. They are again bringing irrelevant parties into
the mix.
Line 10227 – DEI – Common law principle is that the male pronoun is used to represent both genders.
Line 10238 - DEI – Common law principle is that the male pronoun is used to represent both genders.
Line 10248 - DEI – Common law principle is that the male pronoun is used to represent both genders.
Line 10324 - DEI – Common law principle is that the male pronoun is used to represent both genders.
Also affects the missing child clearinghouse and would hamper finding a missing child that the police are
looking for.
Line 10350 – Limits participation permission to only the designated parent.
Line 10381 – Throughout this bill, there are references to orders under the old statutes, yet there is no
reference to the ability of the parents to have their case judged by and viewed under the old statute.
This lacks the required Ex Post Facto language and is therefore unconstitutional on its face.
Line 10622 – Here is the confusion that is present throughout about “legal custodian,” and would allow
a non-parent to prevent names from being released to military recruiters.
Line 10677 - Throughout this bill, there are references to orders under the old statutes, yet there is no
reference to the ability of the parents to have their case judged by and viewed under the old statute.
This lacks the required Ex Post Facto language and is therefore unconstitutional on its face.
Line 10690 – Changes in this section, for the most part, are to remove residential parent and replace it
with designated parent. There still exist some issues with a conflict with FERPA.
Line 10757 – Major conflict with FERPA. As written, unless you are the “designated parent,” no
information can be released to you by the schools.
Line 10798 – The use of “designated parent” in this section will affect intact families. There is language
that specifically states that it does not apply to divorced or legally separated parents.
Line 10931 – The changes here will affect all families with a disability that has an IEP for their specialized
education.
Line 10946 - Designated parent language that again limits parenting and their child’s education, contrary
to FERPA protections.
Line 11011 – Redefining what a parent is negates the non-designated parent.
Line 11064 – Changes will cause problems for the former spouses of military members unless they were
named the “designated parent.” If an order was issued by the court before this bill’s passage, the person
would have to go back to court to have themselves labeled as the “designated parent” to be able to
enroll in college.
Line 11196 - Redefining what a parent is negates the non-designated parent.
Line 10145 – The cart is ahead of the horse again here; the dissolving of the relationship has to come
first before there can be any allocation of parental rights. They are again bringing irrelevant parties into
the mix.
Line 10227 – DEI – Common law principle is that the male pronoun is used to represent both genders.
Line 10238 - DEI – Common law principle is that the male pronoun is used to represent both genders.
Line 10248 - DEI – Common law principle is that the male pronoun is used to represent both genders.
Line 10324 - DEI – Common law principle is that the male pronoun is used to represent both genders.
Also affects the missing child clearinghouse and would hamper finding a missing child that the police are
looking for.
Line 10350 – Limits participation permission to only the designated parent.
Line 10381 – Throughout this bill, there are references to orders under the old statutes, yet there is no
reference to the ability of the parents to have their case judged by and viewed under the old statute.
This lacks the required Ex Post Facto language and is therefore unconstitutional on its face.
Line 10622 – Here is the confusion that is present throughout about “legal custodian,” and would allow
a non-parent to prevent names from being released to military recruiters.
Line 10677 - Throughout this bill, there are references to orders under the old statutes, yet there is no
reference to the ability of the parents to have their case judged by and viewed under the old statute.
This lacks the required Ex Post Facto language and is therefore unconstitutional on its face.
Line 10690 – Changes in this section, for the most part, are to remove residential parent and replace it
with designated parent. There still exist some issues with a conflict with FERPA.
Line 10757 – Major conflict with FERPA. As written, unless you are the “designated parent,” no
information can be released to you by the schools.
Line 10798 – The use of “designated parent” in this section will affect intact families. There is language
that specifically states that it does not apply to divorced or legally separated parents.
Line 10931 – The changes here will affect all families with a disability that has an IEP for their specialized
education.
Line 10946 - Designated parent language that again limits parenting and their child’s education, contrary
to FERPA protections.
Line 11011 – Redefining what a parent is negates the non-designated parent.
Line 11064 – Changes will cause problems for the former spouses of military members unless they were
named the “designated parent.” If an order was issued by the court before this bill’s passage, the person
would have to go back to court to have themselves labeled as the “designated parent” to be able to
enroll in college.
Line 11196 - Redefining what a parent is negates the non-designated parent.
Line 11235 - Redefining what a parent is negates the non-designated parent.
Line 11275 – These changes will affect all adults using cannabis who are medical and recreational users.
Line 11363 - These changes will affect all adults using cannabis who are medical and recreational users.
Line 11416 – Changes within this section will affect health care benefits for all families.
Line 11521 - Changes within this section will affect health care benefits for all families.
Line 11615 – Children’s Services would be required to develop rules that only recognize designated
parents. If you are not the designated parent, you would not be allowed to see your children even if you
are not the parent accused of abuse or neglect.
Line 11681 - Children’s Services would be required to develop rules that only recognize designated
parents. If you are not the designated parent, you would not be allowed to see your children, even if you
are not their parent accused of abuse or neglect.
Line 11695 - Children’s Services would be required to develop rules that you would not be allowed to
see your children, even if you are not the parent, accused of abuse or neglect, unless you are the
designated parent. Keep in mind here, the designated parent could be the one accused of abuse or
neglect.
Line 11761 – This becomes a moot point since Ohio would have to withdraw from the UCCJEA compact
because of the conflicting language between Ohio and other state laws. No other state uses “designated
parent”; they use residential parent.
Line 11806 – This section of law has always bothered me since it can essentially mean that we are
allowing women to raise their children behind bars.
Line 11841 – Lack of an ex post facto clause would mean that termination from the program would have
to be handled by the court, not the prison. If the court decides, then even if the situation is unhealthy
for the child, the child would have to stay in prison.
Line 12016 - One word changed, and that is designated parent replaces residential parent.
Line 12079 – One word changed; “mental” health changed to “behavioral” health. Call it what you want,
it is still someone who has serious issues with their thinking process from any factor, including drugs and
alcohol.
Line 12133 – If the court orders children’s services to supervise visitation, who is responsible for the
cost? The parent? The County? The Court? Children’s services?
Line 12269 - Redefining what a parent is negates the non-designated parent.
Ray R. Lautenschlager
Legislative Director
440-281-5478
Ohio Family Rights
legislation@ohiofamilyrights.com
Line 11275 – These changes will affect all adults using cannabis who are medical and recreational users.
Line 11363 - These changes will affect all adults using cannabis who are medical and recreational users.
Line 11416 – Changes within this section will affect health care benefits for all families.
Line 11521 - Changes within this section will affect health care benefits for all families.
Line 11615 – Children’s Services would be required to develop rules that only recognize designated
parents. If you are not the designated parent, you would not be allowed to see your children even if you
are not the parent accused of abuse or neglect.
Line 11681 - Children’s Services would be required to develop rules that only recognize designated
parents. If you are not the designated parent, you would not be allowed to see your children, even if you
are not their parent accused of abuse or neglect.
Line 11695 - Children’s Services would be required to develop rules that you would not be allowed to
see your children, even if you are not the parent, accused of abuse or neglect, unless you are the
designated parent. Keep in mind here, the designated parent could be the one accused of abuse or
neglect.
Line 11761 – This becomes a moot point since Ohio would have to withdraw from the UCCJEA compact
because of the conflicting language between Ohio and other state laws. No other state uses “designated
parent”; they use residential parent.
Line 11806 – This section of law has always bothered me since it can essentially mean that we are
allowing women to raise their children behind bars.
Line 11841 – Lack of an ex post facto clause would mean that termination from the program would have
to be handled by the court, not the prison. If the court decides, then even if the situation is unhealthy
for the child, the child would have to stay in prison.
Line 12016 - One word changed, and that is designated parent replaces residential parent.
Line 12079 – One word changed; “mental” health changed to “behavioral” health. Call it what you want,
it is still someone who has serious issues with their thinking process from any factor, including drugs and
alcohol.
Line 12133 – If the court orders children’s services to supervise visitation, who is responsible for the
cost? The parent? The County? The Court? Children’s services?
Line 12269 - Redefining what a parent is negates the non-designated parent.
Ray R. Lautenschlager
Legislative Director
440-281-5478
Ohio Family Rights
legislation@ohiofamilyrights.com