Response to National Parents Organization
I do have a question for you Elizabeth, when are you going to grow up and put the farmer in his place for disrespecting every parent in Ohio and for violating Ohio law. It is obvious that you had a major lack of planning on how to deal with the various issues that come up on this type of legislation. You have made claims that I am trying block you from pushing “shared parenting” in Ohio yet you have never spoken to me. You have my number and you were invited to speak with myself and my board in June of last year yet you refused the invite.
I watched the testimony on the sub bill and I strongly disapprove of the changes on an already disastrous bill for Ohio. Creech couldn’t answer simple question that were posed to him. Totally unprepared.
I have to ask, have you even read the bill and do you even understand the expensive litigation issues that it will cause everyone going through a divorce of custody battle?
If you and others with you had been prepared you could have kept the judges out of the mix completely instead you, Creech, and others participated willingly in conversations and meetings with the judges that violated their Cannons and violated Ohio law.
I will need those names so that the complaints can be forwarded to the Ohio Supreme Court so they can take action. Creech was made aware of that paper in January of 2021 so he has no excuse for his failure and lack of ethics.
I broke down HB508 line by line and found over 100 faults within the bill and the problems that it will cause down the road. I have not gone over the substitute bill to find all the problems that it will cause other than the removal of clear and convincing which leaves this state at the he said/she said that it has been since shared parenting was made law in 1981 (I do have that and other bills introduced in Ohio).
http://www.ohiofamilyrights.com/New/HB508%20Problems.htm
There have been admissions that Creech did share with you the draft bill I gave him a copy of. Since you rejected that bill, why don’t you break down what you perceive to be the flaws on that bill? Or didn’t have a problem with it other than the fact that it came from Ohio Family Rights? Why don’t you give it to Slosser who claims he wrote HB508 and let him break down our bill for flaws since and likes to present himself as the “expect”. Might want to have him go back and reread the medical marijuana law since he misrepresented to the committee what that law said.
If you or any of your “followers” want to prove me wrong I encourage you or them to bring it on and show me where I am wrong.
Ray R. Lautenschlager
Legislative Director
440-281-5478
president@ohiofamilyrights.com
NPO’s message that was forwarded to me that I am responding to:
From: Elizabeth McNeese
<elizabethmcneese@sharedparenting.org>
Date: May 12, 2022 at 9:20:25 AM EDT
To: Don Hubin <donhubin@sharedparenting.org>, Alexander Haas
<me@alexanderhaas.org>
Subject: HB508 Update 5/12/22
HB508 Update
On Tuesday, May 10th, HB508 received its fourth hearing, in which the Representatives introduced a sub-bill to HB508. I know some of you have questions about what specifically changed, and why.
First, I'd encourage you to watch Rep Creech's testimony. (Begins at 14:30)
Second, attached is the summary from LSC of what changed--the new language vs. the original language of HB508.
Most notably is the clear and convincing standard being removed, keeping the evidentiary standard at preponderance. For the record, we believe C&C is the most appropriate standard and will continue to work to find ways to address this issue. As alluded to in my previous email, the Reps were getting pressure from the Chair and leadership to drop C&C if they wanted the bill to move forward. The Reps decided to keep moving forward rather than let them kill the bill over C&C.
Some positive things about the sub-bill include adding
recourse for false allegations and atty fees. Further, we added false
allegations to the "friendly parent factors" - so if the court does
not order 50/50 they must consider whether a parent lied or misled the court
when determining which parent is the custodial parent and they can't give
preference to the lying parent. The court must also consider whether a parent
lied to law enforcement, so a false police report must be considered. This
doesn't fix everything but it's a nice start.
Another change relates to parenting time interference. First, the court must now hear motions for parenting time interference within 28 days, and the court is allowed to issue a temporary order if necessary to protect the child's relationship with the parent while a final decision is pending. This is in addition to requiring the court to order makeup time and atty's fees.
Anyway, if you have any questions, let me know. The next hearing is next Tuesday, and likely be opposition testimony.
Elizabeth
614-266-5088
|
|
