Line 4752 – The details required here would mean that there would have to be so many details for each
child that the plan could and likely would be 800 pages long. That is a plan for each child since all
children develop at different rates.
Line 4755 – Designated parent will be a point of contention in all custody cases, as it designates a
superior position. Legal custodian is a position granted to a third party if the parents are found guilty of
abuse or neglect. It is also a title given to a party that handles the affairs of a disabled child after they
reach maturity and cannot handle their own affairs due to being incompetent.
Line 4758 – Child support and custody/visitation are two separate issues.
Line 4761 – No consideration given to private, homeschooling, charter schools
Line 4762 – Health care coverage? This has always been the best available coverage at the most
reasonable cost. With no provision included, it now becomes a “free-for-all” of what will be used to best
cover the children.
Line 4763 – State and federal tax codes determine who can claim a child based on the time they have
been under the roof of a parent.
Line 4765 – Treaties, federal law? There are only two found places where this section would come into
play.
The Hague handles cases, but it limits their involvement to parental abduction cases.
The second is a treaty that the United States did not support or sign, which was put forth by the
European nations, that is commonly referred to as the CRC, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The United States did not ratify or support this measure. It gives more rights to the child than to their
parents.
Line 4768 – Here, again, is the language that confuses a parent with a legal custodian.
Line 4771 – The language here creates a dangerous situation for children. If a child has an emergency
and needs to talk to their parent outside of the time that the order contains, the parent would not be
allowed to talk with them.
Line 4774 – Extra-curricular activities of a child can change from year to year. This would mean that
every time a child wanted to involve themselves in a new activity, the parents would have to go back to
court for its approval.
Line 4778 – Procedure for parenting time, including location and transportation, which allows for no
flexibility in case of emergency or vehicle breakdown.
Line 4780 – The language here creates a dangerous situation for children. If a child has an emergency
and needs to talk to their parent outside of the time that the order contains, the parent would not be
allowed to talk with them.
Line 4782 – Right to access to school and medical records FERPA problem. Possible My Chart issue if one
parent doesn’t want the other to see those records.
Line 4786 – Geographic location restrictions and relocation procedure that fails to state what the
restrictions are.
Line 4790 – Financial support? Are we to presume this to be child support?
Line 4793 – Dispute resolution through a non-adversarial process that forces parents to reveal the entire
case.
Line 4796 - `Change of address notifications that will work against the confidentiality laws that were put
in place for domestic violence victims. Also, overburden some amount of information and reasons why a
party needs to provide information to the other party. This would also be overly burdensome for some
of the courts, as any time a party changes email, phone, or changes apartments within a complex, they
would have to make a filing at court, requiring a hearing.
Line 4802 – No limits on what a court could require within a “plan”.
Line 4803 – 30-day requirement for filing a parenting plan before a hearing that can be waived by the
court for cause, but does not list what good cause is or what burden of proof is required.
Line 4811 - Finding of facts, by the Rules of Civil Procedure, come with a final appealable order. This
clause allows for the parents to appeal contrary to the Civil Procedure requirements. Sponsors have a
confusing use of words with “Substantially Equal”. They are confusing a mathematical equal with a legal
equal. Mathematical equality is a precise number that is half of what is being divided into equal parts.
Legal equality does not have to meet that precision. As an example, a 6’ 6” man is legally equal to a 5’ 0”
woman in the eyes of the law. With a lack of an evidentiary standard, one has to wonder under what
level of scrutiny courts are going to judge these cases.
Line 4826 – Multiple separate parenting plans? While separate plans by each parent are somewhat
expected, as worded, this would allow each of them, and that mystery custodian, to file multiple plans
of their own. It is unclear if the court would have to file a finding of facts that the parties could then
appeal, as previously mentioned. It is still unclear and unstated what level of scrutiny is that the court is
to use in making its decisions.
Line 4845 – If no plan is filed, this would now require the court to write the detailed plan based on no
information from the parents.
Line 4847 - With the amount of work that is being placed on judges, I have to wonder how many new
judges, magistrates, and law clerks will be needed to complete the requirements in a timely manner. I
also wonder how this will be paid for.
Line 4852 – With the amount of detail required in plans, that is being missed here is that since plans
must take into consideration the age, maturity, and such of each child, there will exist multiple plans
within each filed case and plan.
Line 4854 – Very curious statement since the court already drew their presumption when it issued the
temporary order. The Rules of Civil Procedure allow the courts to issue temporary orders without a full
evidentiary hearing.
restrictions are.
Line 4790 – Financial support? Are we to presume this to be child support?
Line 4793 – Dispute resolution through a non-adversarial process that forces parents to reveal the entire
case.
Line 4796 - `Change of address notifications that will work against the confidentiality laws that were put
in place for domestic violence victims. Also, overburden some amount of information and reasons why a
party needs to provide information to the other party. This would also be overly burdensome for some
of the courts, as any time a party changes email, phone, or changes apartments within a complex, they
would have to make a filing at court, requiring a hearing.
Line 4802 – No limits on what a court could require within a “plan”.
Line 4803 – 30-day requirement for filing a parenting plan before a hearing that can be waived by the
court for cause, but does not list what good cause is or what burden of proof is required.
Line 4811 - Finding of facts, by the Rules of Civil Procedure, come with a final appealable order. This
clause allows for the parents to appeal contrary to the Civil Procedure requirements. Sponsors have a
confusing use of words with “Substantially Equal”. They are confusing a mathematical equal with a legal
equal. Mathematical equality is a precise number that is half of what is being divided into equal parts.
Legal equality does not have to meet that precision. As an example, a 6’ 6” man is legally equal to a 5’ 0”
woman in the eyes of the law. With a lack of an evidentiary standard, one has to wonder under what
level of scrutiny courts are going to judge these cases.
Line 4826 – Multiple separate parenting plans? While separate plans by each parent are somewhat
expected, as worded, this would allow each of them, and that mystery custodian, to file multiple plans
of their own. It is unclear if the court would have to file a finding of facts that the parties could then
appeal, as previously mentioned. It is still unclear and unstated what level of scrutiny is that the court is
to use in making its decisions.
Line 4845 – If no plan is filed, this would now require the court to write the detailed plan based on no
information from the parents.
Line 4847 - With the amount of work that is being placed on judges, I have to wonder how many new
judges, magistrates, and law clerks will be needed to complete the requirements in a timely manner. I
also wonder how this will be paid for.
Line 4852 – With the amount of detail required in plans, that is being missed here is that since plans
must take into consideration the age, maturity, and such of each child, there will exist multiple plans
within each filed case and plan.
Line 4854 – Very curious statement since the court already drew their presumption when it issued the
temporary order. The Rules of Civil Procedure allow the courts to issue temporary orders without a full
evidentiary hearing.
Line 4857 – This is on Page 164 and is the first mention of any evidentiary standard that will be used.
With complete discretion, the court will be able to do as they wish, and since they have to provide a
“Finding of Facts,” all they have to do to support themselves is say is “Because this is what I decided”.
Line 4859 – This may be one of the scariest sections of this bill that I have read yet. As written, this
would allow a judge to find a parent unsuitable/unfit at their own discretion oot simply because they
don’t like them. It would also allow a judge an open door to shirk their duties and dump a case on
another court and judge. It also allows a judge to give custody and control of the children to a third
party or children’s services.
Line 4868 – This is nothing more than a regurgitation of what began with the changes in ORC 3109.04.
Line 4875 – This is the second scariest section of this bill because it allows for the termination of
parental rights based on preponderance. The U.S. Supreme Court decided Santkosky and set the
standard nationwide at clear and convincing evidence.
Line 4885 – Again, the sponsors are confused about what a “legal custodian” i. This has it confused with
a kinship caregiver who hosts a child, while abuse and neglect proceedings are taking place. Juvenile
Court proceedings in abuse and neglect cases have a strict and tight schedule that must be met.
Line 4890 – The changes only apply to parties that are in agreement with changing a prior plan.
Line 4901 – The changes suggested here do not comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling in Fischer v.
Hasenjager or Bruns v. Green.
Line 4906 – Fails to state how much detail should be included.
Line 4907 – Again with the confusion about what a guardian is in Ohio.
Line 4909 – Isn’t the job of the court to decide this?
Line 4911 – This raises the bar so high that getting a change after the initial case in court it would be
impossible to meet.
Line 4918 – No legal definition of “best interests” is anywhere in this bill.
Line 4920 – Contradicts a previous section, and the designated parent won’t agree, so they can maintain
the superior position that was previously superior position they were granted, even if they know it is
best. This will greatly increase litigation.
Line 4922 – This is another impossible situation that a parent would have to overcome. Consent can only
happen if the “designated” parent is willing to give up their superior title.
Line 4926 – No guides on what the advantages might be or the factors the court would use to determine
them.
Line 4927 – ORC 2323.51 is so broad that any motion asking for a change or enforcement of any order
could be applied.
Line 4933 – ORC 3119.76 deals with court motions for recalculation of support orders, not
administrative orders as this section claims.
With complete discretion, the court will be able to do as they wish, and since they have to provide a
“Finding of Facts,” all they have to do to support themselves is say is “Because this is what I decided”.
Line 4859 – This may be one of the scariest sections of this bill that I have read yet. As written, this
would allow a judge to find a parent unsuitable/unfit at their own discretion oot simply because they
don’t like them. It would also allow a judge an open door to shirk their duties and dump a case on
another court and judge. It also allows a judge to give custody and control of the children to a third
party or children’s services.
Line 4868 – This is nothing more than a regurgitation of what began with the changes in ORC 3109.04.
Line 4875 – This is the second scariest section of this bill because it allows for the termination of
parental rights based on preponderance. The U.S. Supreme Court decided Santkosky and set the
standard nationwide at clear and convincing evidence.
Line 4885 – Again, the sponsors are confused about what a “legal custodian” i. This has it confused with
a kinship caregiver who hosts a child, while abuse and neglect proceedings are taking place. Juvenile
Court proceedings in abuse and neglect cases have a strict and tight schedule that must be met.
Line 4890 – The changes only apply to parties that are in agreement with changing a prior plan.
Line 4901 – The changes suggested here do not comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling in Fischer v.
Hasenjager or Bruns v. Green.
Line 4906 – Fails to state how much detail should be included.
Line 4907 – Again with the confusion about what a guardian is in Ohio.
Line 4909 – Isn’t the job of the court to decide this?
Line 4911 – This raises the bar so high that getting a change after the initial case in court it would be
impossible to meet.
Line 4918 – No legal definition of “best interests” is anywhere in this bill.
Line 4920 – Contradicts a previous section, and the designated parent won’t agree, so they can maintain
the superior position that was previously superior position they were granted, even if they know it is
best. This will greatly increase litigation.
Line 4922 – This is another impossible situation that a parent would have to overcome. Consent can only
happen if the “designated” parent is willing to give up their superior title.
Line 4926 – No guides on what the advantages might be or the factors the court would use to determine
them.
Line 4927 – ORC 2323.51 is so broad that any motion asking for a change or enforcement of any order
could be applied.
Line 4933 – ORC 3119.76 deals with court motions for recalculation of support orders, not
administrative orders as this section claims.
Line 4937 – This section would allow for a change of custody based on an affidavit only.
Line 4944 – This will cause clogs in the court dockets and mean that courts will have to hire personnel to
accommodate the schedule listed.
Line 4950 – This is commonly referred to as the “Baby Mama Rule”.
Line 4954 – Section 3109.0430 that is referenced here is not a definition of “Best Interests of the Child”;
it is a list of factors for determining custody and visitation in a case.
Line 4962 – This section allows a rapist to gain custody of a child.
Line 4969 – Expedited appeals of a court order take 6 – 12 months. The most common reason for denial
of an appeal is that it relies on the discretion of the trier of fact. With the absolute discretion given to
the court by this bill, any appeal would be a waste of time for any parent.
Line 4973 – These are the factors for determining custody and visitation, not a definition of “Best
Interest of the Child”.
Line 4976 - Again, this is the confusion of a guardian and a parent.
Line 4978 – This section concerns a child born to a never-married set of parents. These cases take place
when a child is too young to express their own concerns.
Line 4979 – While a natural relationship would exist with the mother that gave birth, the father would
not be afforded the same opportunity until they have filed to establish themselves legally. Again, added
confusion as a total stranger is factored into this determination.
Line 4982 – Again, this factors in people who are not parents or family to the child.
Line 4985 – These would be impossible to judge as they are too broad.
Line 4987 – This would require expensive psychological testing of the parents to determine.
Line 4989 – This would require expensive psychological testing of the child to determine if used as a
factor.
Line 4991 – This factor will turn into a he-said/she-said war between the parents. Again, a guardian is a
person appointed by the probate court for a person who cannot handle their own affairs once they
reach the age of maturity.
Line 4994 – This only uses current issues, not past. The parents that this section covers are not married,
and spousal abuse cannot happen between non-married people. Sponsors have failed to recognize that
common law marriage was removed from the Ohio Revised Code. Ohio does not have a parental
kidnapping law. There is a law if someone attempts to kidnap a child while in possession of Child
Protective Services.
Line 4996 – False allegations of abuse are dangerous and disruptive to the parents and children. Using
this as a factor would greatly increase the cost to the state and the county. Children’s services would
have to testify as to the validity of the allegations made.
Line 4944 – This will cause clogs in the court dockets and mean that courts will have to hire personnel to
accommodate the schedule listed.
Line 4950 – This is commonly referred to as the “Baby Mama Rule”.
Line 4954 – Section 3109.0430 that is referenced here is not a definition of “Best Interests of the Child”;
it is a list of factors for determining custody and visitation in a case.
Line 4962 – This section allows a rapist to gain custody of a child.
Line 4969 – Expedited appeals of a court order take 6 – 12 months. The most common reason for denial
of an appeal is that it relies on the discretion of the trier of fact. With the absolute discretion given to
the court by this bill, any appeal would be a waste of time for any parent.
Line 4973 – These are the factors for determining custody and visitation, not a definition of “Best
Interest of the Child”.
Line 4976 - Again, this is the confusion of a guardian and a parent.
Line 4978 – This section concerns a child born to a never-married set of parents. These cases take place
when a child is too young to express their own concerns.
Line 4979 – While a natural relationship would exist with the mother that gave birth, the father would
not be afforded the same opportunity until they have filed to establish themselves legally. Again, added
confusion as a total stranger is factored into this determination.
Line 4982 – Again, this factors in people who are not parents or family to the child.
Line 4985 – These would be impossible to judge as they are too broad.
Line 4987 – This would require expensive psychological testing of the parents to determine.
Line 4989 – This would require expensive psychological testing of the child to determine if used as a
factor.
Line 4991 – This factor will turn into a he-said/she-said war between the parents. Again, a guardian is a
person appointed by the probate court for a person who cannot handle their own affairs once they
reach the age of maturity.
Line 4994 – This only uses current issues, not past. The parents that this section covers are not married,
and spousal abuse cannot happen between non-married people. Sponsors have failed to recognize that
common law marriage was removed from the Ohio Revised Code. Ohio does not have a parental
kidnapping law. There is a law if someone attempts to kidnap a child while in possession of Child
Protective Services.
Line 4996 – False allegations of abuse are dangerous and disruptive to the parents and children. Using
this as a factor would greatly increase the cost to the state and the county. Children’s services would
have to testify as to the validity of the allegations made.