SB174 as passed by the Senate
This will break down where the problem starts line by line, as well as what problems it causes all families
in Ohio. When I say all, I am including those who are divorcing, those who are divorced, the never-
married who are or have had custody orders issued by the courts, and those just starting that process.
LSC did an analysis of this bill and a financial analysis of this bill, but it does not explain, in detail, the
problems that it will cause or the high cost of this bill. LSC limits its cost analysis to the government,
while we consider the costs to all families and the government and agencies.
The intact families of Ohio do not escape from the overreach of this bill.
The bill has major issues and conflicts with Federal Law in several places.
There are major constitutional questions that make this bill “unconstitutional on its face”.
There are major items that were removed from the current law that will cause chaos in the courtroom
and in the lives of children. The “factors” are spread all over the place and are not consistent from
section to section. This will cause a major increase in the cost of litigation and the cost of operating the
courts.
The presumption of equality that is currently ORC 3109.03 and the
backup in Ohio’s stated policies about child-parent relationships in
other sections is missing from this bill.
There are sections and changes in language that will affect intact
families and would force them to go to court and to have one of the
members named as the designated parent for something as simple as a
Power of Attorney.
Line 196 – As written, only the designated parent can report a child
missing. This would affect intact and divorced/never-married parents. Affects state and federal law
enforcement.
Line 272 – The term designated parent is used throughout this bill and will affect every parent in the
state.
Line 371 – There is a confusing definition of the terms for parents. This likely comes from the DEI
perspective of the LSC drafter.
Line 435 – Repetitious.
Line 491 – This section will block out the non-designated parent from participation in the deceased
child's funeral.
Line 503 - The term designated parent is used throughout this bill and will affect every parent in the
state.
Line 514 – The use of a designated parent contradicts the statement that neither parent has superior
rights over the raising and decision-making of the child.
Line 530 – This will affect Ohio’s participation in UCCJEA because other states use residential parent
within their terminology.
Line 649 – When someone is appointed guardian by the probate court, it happens after the person has
reached the age of maturity, which is 18 in Ohio.
Line 766 – Permanent custody can only take place if a parent is found unfit by clear and convincing
evidence and their rights have been terminated. Termination also requires clear and convincing
evidence.
Line 1050 – Cross-reference to new section of section 3109. 498. This will affect abuse and neglect cases
and never-married custody cases.
Line 1168 – Does not specify the evidentiary standard or the factors that should be used.
Line 1306 – As written, this would give the “host family” more rights than the child’s parents.
Line 1364 – Through this section, there are numerous changes made. The changes grant duties and
powers to courts that are inconsistent from county to county and courts within individual counties.
Line 1756 – Language changes here take away the ability of the juvenile court to hear and decide never-
married custody cases. This is an area where the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction.
Line 1839 – Throughout this section, there are major inconsistencies with the duties described for
similar courts in other counties.
Line 3236 – The language added here did nothing to change the law except add words. The intent and
meaning of section (H) does not change.
Line 3453 – The changing of “of” to “in” does not change anything with this section. Frivolous.
Line 3481 – Another frivolous change is made. The “changes” change nothing in the section or the law.
Line 3539 – Wording that is added that will affect “contempt” proceedings.
Line 3568 – Contempt changes that do nothing except add words.
Line 3585 – Contempt changes that do nothing except add words.
Line 3605 – 3774 – In these lines, the only reason that they were added is to replace “residential” with
“designated”.
Line 3774 – One change that does nothing but solely accommodate the use of the term “designated
parent”.
Line 3812 – One word was added that changes nothing with the intent of the section.
Line 3804 – Changed to add one word that does not change the intent of the section.
Line 3825 – The intent of this section was for pre-granting procedures. As written, instead of before, the
procedures are moved to afterward.
within their terminology.
Line 649 – When someone is appointed guardian by the probate court, it happens after the person has
reached the age of maturity, which is 18 in Ohio.
Line 766 – Permanent custody can only take place if a parent is found unfit by clear and convincing
evidence and their rights have been terminated. Termination also requires clear and convincing
evidence.
Line 1050 – Cross-reference to new section of section 3109. 498. This will affect abuse and neglect cases
and never-married custody cases.
Line 1168 – Does not specify the evidentiary standard or the factors that should be used.
Line 1306 – As written, this would give the “host family” more rights than the child’s parents.
Line 1364 – Through this section, there are numerous changes made. The changes grant duties and
powers to courts that are inconsistent from county to county and courts within individual counties.
Line 1756 – Language changes here take away the ability of the juvenile court to hear and decide never-
married custody cases. This is an area where the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction.
Line 1839 – Throughout this section, there are major inconsistencies with the duties described for
similar courts in other counties.
Line 3236 – The language added here did nothing to change the law except add words. The intent and
meaning of section (H) does not change.
Line 3453 – The changing of “of” to “in” does not change anything with this section. Frivolous.
Line 3481 – Another frivolous change is made. The “changes” change nothing in the section or the law.
Line 3539 – Wording that is added that will affect “contempt” proceedings.
Line 3568 – Contempt changes that do nothing except add words.
Line 3585 – Contempt changes that do nothing except add words.
Line 3605 – 3774 – In these lines, the only reason that they were added is to replace “residential” with
“designated”.
Line 3774 – One change that does nothing but solely accommodate the use of the term “designated
parent”.
Line 3812 – One word was added that changes nothing with the intent of the section.
Line 3804 – Changed to add one word that does not change the intent of the section.
Line 3825 – The intent of this section was for pre-granting procedures. As written, instead of before, the
procedures are moved to afterward.
Line 3832 – If there is a failure to prove cause for a divorce, the court has no reason to interfere with
custody or determining best interest; the case would be closed.
Line 3850 – This section originally detailed what the parents were to do when dissolving their marriage,
and those decisions, as far as custody of the minors, were made by them in their separation agreement.
As changed, the court will determine that based on the discretion of the court.
Line 3923 – The term “shared parenting“ is removed. Ohio has had “shared parenting” since 1981, and
part of this was creating a parenting plan. Also removed is “residential” parent, which is replaced with
“designated” parent. That change will increase litigation as parents battle, not for what is best for the
child, but for a “superior” title.
Line 3943 – The inclusion of the “or” that was added allows a non-parent to take control of the child.
Line 3966 – ORC 3109.03 Ohio’s presumption of equality, or it was. Now it reads like an additional factor
for determining custody instead of the policy statement for which it was originally intended.
Line 3979 – 4536 - This is where the bill starts the removal of “Shared Parenting” in Ohio. Ohio has had
shared parenting since 1981. The majority of 3109.04 is removed as it is currently in law. The changes
that are contained were not included in the 2000 Task Force report, as sponsors claim.
Line 4540 – Removes definition of active military member.
Line 4548 – Requires the courts to teach a child how to adjust to divorce.
Line 4552 – Redefines what companionship and visitation are. This also confuses kinship care, which is
where a party has temporary possession, when the parents have been accused of abuse or neglect.
Line 4556 – A co-parenting coach is an adult babysitter who would be allowed to force parents to follow
their thoughts on how to get along.
Line 4561 – Allows the courts to determine what they think a parent should have as counseling and/or
treatment for problems.
Line 4564 – Redefines what mediation is. Provides no clause that the mediator is neutral.
Line 4570 – Redefines what an evaluator is, but fails to define what qualifications and training the
evaluator shall have.
Line 4573 – Defines what a “Guardian Ad Litem” is, but fails to define what their qualifications are and if
their involvement is done on a gender neutral basis.
Line 4575 – The is no section in the ORC 5101.85
Line 4577 - Redefines what a legal custodian is.
Line 4580 – Defines what legal custody is, but confuses that definition with physical custody.
Line 4585 – Redefines what mediation is. Keep in mind, this was previously defined.
Line 4589 – Defines what a mediator is, but allows the courts, not the legislators define what skills and
training they are to have.
custody or determining best interest; the case would be closed.
Line 3850 – This section originally detailed what the parents were to do when dissolving their marriage,
and those decisions, as far as custody of the minors, were made by them in their separation agreement.
As changed, the court will determine that based on the discretion of the court.
Line 3923 – The term “shared parenting“ is removed. Ohio has had “shared parenting” since 1981, and
part of this was creating a parenting plan. Also removed is “residential” parent, which is replaced with
“designated” parent. That change will increase litigation as parents battle, not for what is best for the
child, but for a “superior” title.
Line 3943 – The inclusion of the “or” that was added allows a non-parent to take control of the child.
Line 3966 – ORC 3109.03 Ohio’s presumption of equality, or it was. Now it reads like an additional factor
for determining custody instead of the policy statement for which it was originally intended.
Line 3979 – 4536 - This is where the bill starts the removal of “Shared Parenting” in Ohio. Ohio has had
shared parenting since 1981. The majority of 3109.04 is removed as it is currently in law. The changes
that are contained were not included in the 2000 Task Force report, as sponsors claim.
Line 4540 – Removes definition of active military member.
Line 4548 – Requires the courts to teach a child how to adjust to divorce.
Line 4552 – Redefines what companionship and visitation are. This also confuses kinship care, which is
where a party has temporary possession, when the parents have been accused of abuse or neglect.
Line 4556 – A co-parenting coach is an adult babysitter who would be allowed to force parents to follow
their thoughts on how to get along.
Line 4561 – Allows the courts to determine what they think a parent should have as counseling and/or
treatment for problems.
Line 4564 – Redefines what mediation is. Provides no clause that the mediator is neutral.
Line 4570 – Redefines what an evaluator is, but fails to define what qualifications and training the
evaluator shall have.
Line 4573 – Defines what a “Guardian Ad Litem” is, but fails to define what their qualifications are and if
their involvement is done on a gender neutral basis.
Line 4575 – The is no section in the ORC 5101.85
Line 4577 - Redefines what a legal custodian is.
Line 4580 – Defines what legal custody is, but confuses that definition with physical custody.
Line 4585 – Redefines what mediation is. Keep in mind, this was previously defined.
Line 4589 – Defines what a mediator is, but allows the courts, not the legislators define what skills and
training they are to have.
Line 4595 – “Neutral evaluation” as described and as this process is
described would force parties to reveal their entire case to two
strangers. Those people could be biased, yet there are no instructions
that they act in a neutral and unbiased manner.
Line 4602 – Definitions of what a mother is.
Line 4610 – Definition of what a father is.
Line 4617 – “Parent Coordination” and a parenting coordinator is
nothing more than court ordered babysitter. This section does not
contain their limitations, and they are to remain neutral when appointed.
Line 4622 - “Parent Education”, while some form of “class” is currently required for those who are
ending the relationship, those classes do not address the unique dynamics of the parent-child
relationship that exists before and after the parents end their relationship. As written, it indicates that
they intend to indoctrinate all parents into one way of thinking.
Line 4631 – There is no mention of parents' rights in the United States Constitution or the Ohio
Constitution. Within the Ohio Constitution, the only direct references to family and children as the
definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and the second is the protected right to
an abortion. The second is certainly not in the best interest of any child. None of what is referenced
here is contained in the referred to Constitutions.
Line 4650 – “Parenting time” is repeatedly defined in different ways. As placed, this “definition”
removes all rights for military that are deployed to make arrangements for the care of their children if
they are deployed in the service of our Nation.
Line 4662 – Vaguely explains the numerous ways that a court is allowed to inject itself into the allocation
of parental rights.
Line 4666 – The use of a designated parent indicates a superior position over the other parent. That
single word will lead to increased litigation.
Line 4733 – As written, only the courts can determine time, and legal responsibilities are allocated
between the parents.
Line 4739 - There is no mention of parents' rights in the United States Constitution or the Ohio
Constitution. Within the Ohio Constitution, the only direct references to family and children as the
definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and the second is the protected right to
an abortion. The second is certainly not in the best interest of any child. None of what is referenced
here is contained in the referred to Constitutions.
Line 4744 – Description of a parenting plan, while it claims that it is the ensure a meaningful relationship
and maximize parenting time with each parent, it lacks a definition of what is in the best interest of the
child and how that is determined, and what evidentiary standard is to be used.
Line 4752 - Describes what is supposed to be included in a parenting plan.
described would force parties to reveal their entire case to two
strangers. Those people could be biased, yet there are no instructions
that they act in a neutral and unbiased manner.
Line 4602 – Definitions of what a mother is.
Line 4610 – Definition of what a father is.
Line 4617 – “Parent Coordination” and a parenting coordinator is
nothing more than court ordered babysitter. This section does not
contain their limitations, and they are to remain neutral when appointed.
Line 4622 - “Parent Education”, while some form of “class” is currently required for those who are
ending the relationship, those classes do not address the unique dynamics of the parent-child
relationship that exists before and after the parents end their relationship. As written, it indicates that
they intend to indoctrinate all parents into one way of thinking.
Line 4631 – There is no mention of parents' rights in the United States Constitution or the Ohio
Constitution. Within the Ohio Constitution, the only direct references to family and children as the
definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and the second is the protected right to
an abortion. The second is certainly not in the best interest of any child. None of what is referenced
here is contained in the referred to Constitutions.
Line 4650 – “Parenting time” is repeatedly defined in different ways. As placed, this “definition”
removes all rights for military that are deployed to make arrangements for the care of their children if
they are deployed in the service of our Nation.
Line 4662 – Vaguely explains the numerous ways that a court is allowed to inject itself into the allocation
of parental rights.
Line 4666 – The use of a designated parent indicates a superior position over the other parent. That
single word will lead to increased litigation.
Line 4733 – As written, only the courts can determine time, and legal responsibilities are allocated
between the parents.
Line 4739 - There is no mention of parents' rights in the United States Constitution or the Ohio
Constitution. Within the Ohio Constitution, the only direct references to family and children as the
definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and the second is the protected right to
an abortion. The second is certainly not in the best interest of any child. None of what is referenced
here is contained in the referred to Constitutions.
Line 4744 – Description of a parenting plan, while it claims that it is the ensure a meaningful relationship
and maximize parenting time with each parent, it lacks a definition of what is in the best interest of the
child and how that is determined, and what evidentiary standard is to be used.
Line 4752 - Describes what is supposed to be included in a parenting plan.
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.
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 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 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.
Line 4998 – Fails to recognize if the parent had the ability to pay or if
they even knew they were financially responsible. If CSEA
administratively creates a child support order, that notice is mailed by
snail mail, and delivery proof is not provided.
Line 5001 – No order has been issued at this point by which this
factor can be judged.
Line 5004 – Why do the sponsors keep adding “legal custodian” when
it is a person appointed for a disabled person? For many, the only
relationship they had before was between the sheets.
Line 5009 – Factors in only past performance, and until the filing parent has filed to establish
themselves, they would not have had the opportunity in the past.
Line 5014 – No definition of what a positive or negative environment is.
Line 5015 – Domestic violence advocates often suggest that a mother leave the area to avoid cases.
Line 5018 – Overly broad factor, what is close proximity for some is not for others.
Line 5020 – No clarification of the Guardian Ad Litem and how they make their recommendations in a
gender neutral or unbiased manner.
Line 5021 – There would not have been a parental coordinator at this point. Parent coordinators are
nothing more than a babysitter for adults, and unless they are an attorney have not been able to make
any decisions.
Line 5022 – No mediation has been ordered at this point. The contents of the mediation report have not
been admissible in court traditionally. That allows the mediation to happen freely as each party argues
their side of the situation.
Line 5023 – No specification that these investigations or evaluations are done in a gender neutral and
unbiased manner.
Line 5025 – No definition of what these classes are required to teach the parents.
Line 5028 – Relative safety is subjective, and urban areas have higher crime rates than rural areas.
Line 5030 – This would properly fall under perjury, not a factor for determining a parent’s right to
visitations or time with their child. No cross-reference to Ohio’s perjury statute.
Line 5035 – Fails to state to what degree and party must support that the action was unjustified.
Line 5040 – Overly broad factor and total subjection by the judge or magistrate.
Line 5041 – While this seems to state that the courts are to remain unbiased, it also states that they are
to consider the financial status of a parent indicates that a parent can be denied simply because they are
poor.
Line 5044 – The most used fact by the courts in divorce or never-married custody cases is that the
parents can’t get along. This will not change that.
they even knew they were financially responsible. If CSEA
administratively creates a child support order, that notice is mailed by
snail mail, and delivery proof is not provided.
Line 5001 – No order has been issued at this point by which this
factor can be judged.
Line 5004 – Why do the sponsors keep adding “legal custodian” when
it is a person appointed for a disabled person? For many, the only
relationship they had before was between the sheets.
Line 5009 – Factors in only past performance, and until the filing parent has filed to establish
themselves, they would not have had the opportunity in the past.
Line 5014 – No definition of what a positive or negative environment is.
Line 5015 – Domestic violence advocates often suggest that a mother leave the area to avoid cases.
Line 5018 – Overly broad factor, what is close proximity for some is not for others.
Line 5020 – No clarification of the Guardian Ad Litem and how they make their recommendations in a
gender neutral or unbiased manner.
Line 5021 – There would not have been a parental coordinator at this point. Parent coordinators are
nothing more than a babysitter for adults, and unless they are an attorney have not been able to make
any decisions.
Line 5022 – No mediation has been ordered at this point. The contents of the mediation report have not
been admissible in court traditionally. That allows the mediation to happen freely as each party argues
their side of the situation.
Line 5023 – No specification that these investigations or evaluations are done in a gender neutral and
unbiased manner.
Line 5025 – No definition of what these classes are required to teach the parents.
Line 5028 – Relative safety is subjective, and urban areas have higher crime rates than rural areas.
Line 5030 – This would properly fall under perjury, not a factor for determining a parent’s right to
visitations or time with their child. No cross-reference to Ohio’s perjury statute.
Line 5035 – Fails to state to what degree and party must support that the action was unjustified.
Line 5040 – Overly broad factor and total subjection by the judge or magistrate.
Line 5041 – While this seems to state that the courts are to remain unbiased, it also states that they are
to consider the financial status of a parent indicates that a parent can be denied simply because they are
poor.
Line 5044 – The most used fact by the courts in divorce or never-married custody cases is that the
parents can’t get along. This will not change that.
Line 5047 – Judges and magistrates are legally trained, not medically trained. What abilities would they
possess that qualify them to make such and decision, and what are the consequences if the court picks
the work program?
Line 5053 – Is this parent education or indoctrination into the way the court thinks? The sponsors have
confused abuse and neglect cases with the “original” filings for allocation of parental rights and physical
custody.
Line 5058 - Is this parent education or indoctrination into the way the court thinks?
Line 5061 – First, the sponsors want it ordered, and now they allow the court to waive the requirement.
Which is it going to be?
Line 5063 – Is this to educate or indoctrinate that child? A child’s education is best left to a qualified
educator.
Line 5066 – FERPA controls all issues related to education.
Line 5069 – Is the child to submit this report through a “next best friend”?
Line 5073 – Overly broad list of investigations. Many of these are not relevant to the proceedings.
Line 5078 – Does not list who is qualified to evaluate these listed medical conditions. While it lists some,
it does not specify what their qualifications are.
Line 5083 – Rules 16.50 through 16.55 of the rules of Superintendence of the Court.
Line 5085 – Fails to specify who the evaluator may talk to and if the person is qualified to speak in an
unbiased manner. We are talking never-married cases.
Line 5091 – As they should be when reporting to the court and testifying in a court proceeding.
Line 5095 – Fails to list how the apportionment is done and what information is used.
Line 5098 – In camera interviews will allow the child to speak their mind to the court, BUT they are too
often done after the trial and need to be done before trial, so parents and the attorney have all available
information in hand.
Line 5103 – The most neutral place is the courtroom; another location could affect the seriousness of
the situation in the child’s eyes.
Line 5108 – Does not specify how sufficient reasoning is determined or from whom they gather the
information.
Line 5109 – Fails to qualify what the special circumstances are, or does not determine if it would fail to
be in the best interest of the child.
Line 5112 – Fails to completely list those who are necessary for this proceeding.
Line 5116 – Needs to qualify that the Guardian ad litem is to remain silent and only observe.
Line 5118 – This is about the only sensible section in this bill. A cookie-cutter list of questions from the
judge will not draw out the information that the child wants to give the court.
possess that qualify them to make such and decision, and what are the consequences if the court picks
the work program?
Line 5053 – Is this parent education or indoctrination into the way the court thinks? The sponsors have
confused abuse and neglect cases with the “original” filings for allocation of parental rights and physical
custody.
Line 5058 - Is this parent education or indoctrination into the way the court thinks?
Line 5061 – First, the sponsors want it ordered, and now they allow the court to waive the requirement.
Which is it going to be?
Line 5063 – Is this to educate or indoctrinate that child? A child’s education is best left to a qualified
educator.
Line 5066 – FERPA controls all issues related to education.
Line 5069 – Is the child to submit this report through a “next best friend”?
Line 5073 – Overly broad list of investigations. Many of these are not relevant to the proceedings.
Line 5078 – Does not list who is qualified to evaluate these listed medical conditions. While it lists some,
it does not specify what their qualifications are.
Line 5083 – Rules 16.50 through 16.55 of the rules of Superintendence of the Court.
Line 5085 – Fails to specify who the evaluator may talk to and if the person is qualified to speak in an
unbiased manner. We are talking never-married cases.
Line 5091 – As they should be when reporting to the court and testifying in a court proceeding.
Line 5095 – Fails to list how the apportionment is done and what information is used.
Line 5098 – In camera interviews will allow the child to speak their mind to the court, BUT they are too
often done after the trial and need to be done before trial, so parents and the attorney have all available
information in hand.
Line 5103 – The most neutral place is the courtroom; another location could affect the seriousness of
the situation in the child’s eyes.
Line 5108 – Does not specify how sufficient reasoning is determined or from whom they gather the
information.
Line 5109 – Fails to qualify what the special circumstances are, or does not determine if it would fail to
be in the best interest of the child.
Line 5112 – Fails to completely list those who are necessary for this proceeding.
Line 5116 – Needs to qualify that the Guardian ad litem is to remain silent and only observe.
Line 5118 – This is about the only sensible section in this bill. A cookie-cutter list of questions from the
judge will not draw out the information that the child wants to give the court.
Line 5122 – A failure to list how the proceeding will be recorded. Will it be by a court reporter or by tape
that can fail or be turned off midstream by the judge? Lack of the recording would end any chance of
appeal by the parents.
Line 5126 – Does not change from current law in ORC 3109.04 (3)
Line 5132 – Again with the sponsor and drafter’s confusion about what a “Guardian” is. It would
hamper an attorney appointed for the child when a conflict exists between the child’s wishes and the
Guardian Ad Litem.
Line 5138 – The use of “Preponderance” instead of “Clear and Convincing Evidence” violates the
fundamental right to parent.
Line 5145 – As we read and work through this section, it is clear that the sponsors and LCS drafter do not
understand that custody cases are between fit parents and not those who are under investigation due
to allegations of abuse or neglect.
Line 5151 – These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after the
children’s service finds proof after a thorough investigation.
Line 5153 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after the
children’s service finds proof after a thorough investigation.
Line 5155 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after
children’s services finds proof after a thorough investigation. It also fails to qualify who is doing the
testing it requires.
Line 5157 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after
children’s services finds proof after a thorough investigation. The conditions listed are overly broad.
Line 5159 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after
children’s services finds proof after a thorough investigation. Overly broad and very subjective. These
conditions can only be determined after extensive psychological testing, which is expensive and
subjective on the part of the tester.
Line 5162 – Not a relevant factor, and these listed conditions are best reserved for a Show Cause
(contempt) proceeding.
Line 5165 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after
children’s service finds proof after a thorough investigation, and proof such by a qualified medical
doctor.
Line 5166 – Fails to state how this is determined and by whom. False information is too often used and
suggested by Domestic Violence advocates in an effort to deny a parent time with their child. The forms
used require a parent to disclose these conditions.
Line 5170- Forms require that these conditions exist. Sexual abusers are, by law, forbidden from being in
the presence of a child and are limited in how close they may be where children gather.
Line 5175 – Overly broad and lacks specificity on what the factors are.
that can fail or be turned off midstream by the judge? Lack of the recording would end any chance of
appeal by the parents.
Line 5126 – Does not change from current law in ORC 3109.04 (3)
Line 5132 – Again with the sponsor and drafter’s confusion about what a “Guardian” is. It would
hamper an attorney appointed for the child when a conflict exists between the child’s wishes and the
Guardian Ad Litem.
Line 5138 – The use of “Preponderance” instead of “Clear and Convincing Evidence” violates the
fundamental right to parent.
Line 5145 – As we read and work through this section, it is clear that the sponsors and LCS drafter do not
understand that custody cases are between fit parents and not those who are under investigation due
to allegations of abuse or neglect.
Line 5151 – These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after the
children’s service finds proof after a thorough investigation.
Line 5153 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after the
children’s service finds proof after a thorough investigation.
Line 5155 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after
children’s services finds proof after a thorough investigation. It also fails to qualify who is doing the
testing it requires.
Line 5157 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after
children’s services finds proof after a thorough investigation. The conditions listed are overly broad.
Line 5159 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after
children’s services finds proof after a thorough investigation. Overly broad and very subjective. These
conditions can only be determined after extensive psychological testing, which is expensive and
subjective on the part of the tester.
Line 5162 – Not a relevant factor, and these listed conditions are best reserved for a Show Cause
(contempt) proceeding.
Line 5165 - These conditions require clear and convincing evidence to prove, and that is only after
children’s service finds proof after a thorough investigation, and proof such by a qualified medical
doctor.
Line 5166 – Fails to state how this is determined and by whom. False information is too often used and
suggested by Domestic Violence advocates in an effort to deny a parent time with their child. The forms
used require a parent to disclose these conditions.
Line 5170- Forms require that these conditions exist. Sexual abusers are, by law, forbidden from being in
the presence of a child and are limited in how close they may be where children gather.
Line 5175 – Overly broad and lacks specificity on what the factors are.
Line 5177 – Fails to state that a court shall make the following and support that decision with a finding
of facts and conclusion of law.
Line 5181 - Fails to state that a court shall make the following and support that decision with a finding of
facts and conclusion of law. Only the use of clear and convincing evidence can be used to infringe on a
parent’s fundamental right to parent.
Line 5183 - Fails to state that a court shall make the following and support that decision with a finding of
facts and conclusion of law. Only the use of clear and convincing evidence can be used to infringe on a
parent’s fundamental right to parent.
Line 5184 - Fails to state that a court shall make the following, and support that decision with a finding
of facts and conclusion of law.
Line 5185 – Already done by parents to protect themselves from previous false allegations.
Line 5187 – fails to state why supervised parenting is ordered and what brought the court to issue such
an order.
Line 5188 – No parent should have to pay to see their child.
Line 5190 – Overly broad conditions and no specifications on who will administer these programs. Are
the programs to be administered in a gender neutral manner? Who is paying the cost of these
programs? Abuse and neglect cases require parents facing the allegations to follow an agreed-upon
“case plan” to clear their name.
Line 5195 – How is this condition going to be monitored and by whom?
Line 5197 – Bond? Very questionable for a fit parent, or are the sponsors and LSC drafter confusing this
with the bond when a party is appointed a guardian of a disabled or incompetent person by the probate
court?
Line 5198 – Overly broad and fails to state the evidentiary standard to be used and how the court
intends to support their decision.
Line 5203 - Overly broad and fails to state the evidentiary standard to be used and how the court
intends to support their decision. Fails to state whether the domestic violence is criminal or merely a
civil order of protection based on alleged fear of the other party.
Line 5206 – Overly broad and fails to state the evidentiary standard that the court is required to use in
making and supporting its decision.
Line 5213 – The information contained here is required to be revealed in the initial paperwork when a
case is filed. Courts fail to confirm that information by checking other dockets, such as juvenile or
criminal courts.
Line 5219 - The information contained here is required to be revealed in the initial paperwork when a
case is filed. Courts fail to confirm that information by checking other dockets, such as juvenile or
criminal courts.
of facts and conclusion of law.
Line 5181 - Fails to state that a court shall make the following and support that decision with a finding of
facts and conclusion of law. Only the use of clear and convincing evidence can be used to infringe on a
parent’s fundamental right to parent.
Line 5183 - Fails to state that a court shall make the following and support that decision with a finding of
facts and conclusion of law. Only the use of clear and convincing evidence can be used to infringe on a
parent’s fundamental right to parent.
Line 5184 - Fails to state that a court shall make the following, and support that decision with a finding
of facts and conclusion of law.
Line 5185 – Already done by parents to protect themselves from previous false allegations.
Line 5187 – fails to state why supervised parenting is ordered and what brought the court to issue such
an order.
Line 5188 – No parent should have to pay to see their child.
Line 5190 – Overly broad conditions and no specifications on who will administer these programs. Are
the programs to be administered in a gender neutral manner? Who is paying the cost of these
programs? Abuse and neglect cases require parents facing the allegations to follow an agreed-upon
“case plan” to clear their name.
Line 5195 – How is this condition going to be monitored and by whom?
Line 5197 – Bond? Very questionable for a fit parent, or are the sponsors and LSC drafter confusing this
with the bond when a party is appointed a guardian of a disabled or incompetent person by the probate
court?
Line 5198 – Overly broad and fails to state the evidentiary standard to be used and how the court
intends to support their decision.
Line 5203 - Overly broad and fails to state the evidentiary standard to be used and how the court
intends to support their decision. Fails to state whether the domestic violence is criminal or merely a
civil order of protection based on alleged fear of the other party.
Line 5206 – Overly broad and fails to state the evidentiary standard that the court is required to use in
making and supporting its decision.
Line 5213 – The information contained here is required to be revealed in the initial paperwork when a
case is filed. Courts fail to confirm that information by checking other dockets, such as juvenile or
criminal courts.
Line 5219 - The information contained here is required to be revealed in the initial paperwork when a
case is filed. Courts fail to confirm that information by checking other dockets, such as juvenile or
criminal courts.
Line 5225 – Sponsors and LSC drafter are again confusing children’s services cases and custody between
two fit parents.
Line 5233 – Fails to state how this will be determined and who is responsible for reporting this to the
court.
Line 5241 – Fails to allow a parent to request a guardian ad litem and places the decision solely with the
court. Fails to state who will pay the cost of the guardian ad litem and if those costs are to be divided
equally between the parents or proportionally based on the time the GAL spends with each parent and
the children.
Line 5245 – Falls to state if that candor is to come from an unbiased position.
Line 5248 – This is covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, but as written, requires that all filings and
notices be served upon the GAL by certified mail, or personal service by the local sheriff or a process
server.
Line 5253 – Fails to allow a parent to motion or request an attorney for the child when there exists a
conflict between what the GAL suggests and what the child desires.
Line 5259 – All attorneys are required to provide a fee agreement that designates the hourly rate and
the schedule of payment. Generally, all attorneys will not check if the parent has the ability to pay, and if
they cannot, will file to withdraw from the case for lack of payment. They also
charge the party for filing that motion to withdraw.
Line 5262 – Fails to state if the fees are appropriated by time with the respective
parent. The last statement of any other compensation is vague at best and would
have to be included and limited to what is in the original fee schedule.
Line 5264 – Fee agreements are between the parent and the attorney, not the parents. A separate
motion would have to be filed by a party for reimbursement or to have the other parent pay their legal
fees. To get that, a parent has to show that the other party acted with “dirty hands” during the
proceedings.
Line 5266 – Would be in the original fee agreement.
Line 5267 – There exists no authority for a court to modify a fee schedule between a parent and an
attorney. They have a private agreement between the client and the attorney.
Line 5269 – As written, this requires that all filings be served upon the attorney for the child by personal
service, a process server, by certified mail, or any other method contained within the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Line 5274 - Attorneys for a child are appointed when a conflict exists between the GAL’s suggestions and
the child’s wishes.
Line 5279 – This is a frivolous section since procedures and definitions of a change of residence were
previously defined.
Line 5281 – The lack of a date specifying when the intent to change address or relocate is to take place.
It has to be filed in advance of the move so the other party can object if they wish.
two fit parents.
Line 5233 – Fails to state how this will be determined and who is responsible for reporting this to the
court.
Line 5241 – Fails to allow a parent to request a guardian ad litem and places the decision solely with the
court. Fails to state who will pay the cost of the guardian ad litem and if those costs are to be divided
equally between the parents or proportionally based on the time the GAL spends with each parent and
the children.
Line 5245 – Falls to state if that candor is to come from an unbiased position.
Line 5248 – This is covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure, but as written, requires that all filings and
notices be served upon the GAL by certified mail, or personal service by the local sheriff or a process
server.
Line 5253 – Fails to allow a parent to motion or request an attorney for the child when there exists a
conflict between what the GAL suggests and what the child desires.
Line 5259 – All attorneys are required to provide a fee agreement that designates the hourly rate and
the schedule of payment. Generally, all attorneys will not check if the parent has the ability to pay, and if
they cannot, will file to withdraw from the case for lack of payment. They also
charge the party for filing that motion to withdraw.
Line 5262 – Fails to state if the fees are appropriated by time with the respective
parent. The last statement of any other compensation is vague at best and would
have to be included and limited to what is in the original fee schedule.
Line 5264 – Fee agreements are between the parent and the attorney, not the parents. A separate
motion would have to be filed by a party for reimbursement or to have the other parent pay their legal
fees. To get that, a parent has to show that the other party acted with “dirty hands” during the
proceedings.
Line 5266 – Would be in the original fee agreement.
Line 5267 – There exists no authority for a court to modify a fee schedule between a parent and an
attorney. They have a private agreement between the client and the attorney.
Line 5269 – As written, this requires that all filings be served upon the attorney for the child by personal
service, a process server, by certified mail, or any other method contained within the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Line 5274 - Attorneys for a child are appointed when a conflict exists between the GAL’s suggestions and
the child’s wishes.
Line 5279 – This is a frivolous section since procedures and definitions of a change of residence were
previously defined.
Line 5281 – The lack of a date specifying when the intent to change address or relocate is to take place.
It has to be filed in advance of the move so the other party can object if they wish.
Line 5284 – Needs a specification that the notice is mailed the same day or the next day after the filing is
made.
Line 5286 – Current law is 30 days before the relocation is going to happen. Fails to give a sample of or
define what “exigent circumstances” are acceptable.
Line 5292 – The requirements listed in this section are contrary to the law in Ohio that allows a party to
keep such information private. ORC 111.43 lists the reasons why and who may have the confidential
information.
Line 5302 - The requirements listed in this section are contrary to the law in Ohio that allows a party to
keep such information private. ORC 111.43 lists the reasons why and who may have the confidential
information. Failure to provide the other party with a copy of the filing with the address redacted would
prohibit due process from taking place and prevent the other party from objecting to the move.
Line 5316 – Failure to provide a hearing to respond to an ex parte filing would be contrary to due
process protections provided un the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
Line 5320 – The “may” should be “shall” to protect the due process requirements and bring the offender
before the court for a full explanation of their actions.
Line 5328 – Ordering the return of the child is one of the few common-sense items within this section.
This is especially true if the moving party left the jurisdiction of the court that issued the original order.
Line 5331 – It is unclear if this would require a separate filing of a Show Cause or if the court intends to
make the finding as a direct contempt.
Line 5332 – It is unclear as to what is considered “good cause” in this section.
Line 5336 – It is unclear as to how much detail the non-relocating party must go into to support their
objections to the move. It is also unclear as to what evidentiary standard the court is to use in making its
determination.
Line 5341 – SOP under the Rules of Civil Procedure. As I previously stated, the clerk of the court needs to
send the notice with expediency.
Line 5345 – Needs to be a specific number of days and needs a specific number of days in which the
court returns its decision after the hearing.
Line 5349 – This section lacks an evidentiary standard by which the factors are reviewed.
Line 5357 – Are the parents required to submit proposed new custody plans? It is not clear whether or
not that filing must be done in these relocation filings.
Line 5361 – Would this require further involvement of evaluators, a GAL, or an attorney for the child? Is
their involvement based on the distance of the move? Clarity is much needed here.
Line 5361 – Is extended family and as what is the definition of extended family, going to be allowed to
also object to the move despite not being a party to the case?
Line 5363 – How much proof will be required to show that there would be an “enhancement“ of life?
made.
Line 5286 – Current law is 30 days before the relocation is going to happen. Fails to give a sample of or
define what “exigent circumstances” are acceptable.
Line 5292 – The requirements listed in this section are contrary to the law in Ohio that allows a party to
keep such information private. ORC 111.43 lists the reasons why and who may have the confidential
information.
Line 5302 - The requirements listed in this section are contrary to the law in Ohio that allows a party to
keep such information private. ORC 111.43 lists the reasons why and who may have the confidential
information. Failure to provide the other party with a copy of the filing with the address redacted would
prohibit due process from taking place and prevent the other party from objecting to the move.
Line 5316 – Failure to provide a hearing to respond to an ex parte filing would be contrary to due
process protections provided un the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
Line 5320 – The “may” should be “shall” to protect the due process requirements and bring the offender
before the court for a full explanation of their actions.
Line 5328 – Ordering the return of the child is one of the few common-sense items within this section.
This is especially true if the moving party left the jurisdiction of the court that issued the original order.
Line 5331 – It is unclear if this would require a separate filing of a Show Cause or if the court intends to
make the finding as a direct contempt.
Line 5332 – It is unclear as to what is considered “good cause” in this section.
Line 5336 – It is unclear as to how much detail the non-relocating party must go into to support their
objections to the move. It is also unclear as to what evidentiary standard the court is to use in making its
determination.
Line 5341 – SOP under the Rules of Civil Procedure. As I previously stated, the clerk of the court needs to
send the notice with expediency.
Line 5345 – Needs to be a specific number of days and needs a specific number of days in which the
court returns its decision after the hearing.
Line 5349 – This section lacks an evidentiary standard by which the factors are reviewed.
Line 5357 – Are the parents required to submit proposed new custody plans? It is not clear whether or
not that filing must be done in these relocation filings.
Line 5361 – Would this require further involvement of evaluators, a GAL, or an attorney for the child? Is
their involvement based on the distance of the move? Clarity is much needed here.
Line 5361 – Is extended family and as what is the definition of extended family, going to be allowed to
also object to the move despite not being a party to the case?
Line 5363 – How much proof will be required to show that there would be an “enhancement“ of life?
Line 5367 – What is the stability of the child based on? There is no clarity as to what it is and what
considerations it shall be given.
Line 5368 – Overly broad factor
Line 5369 begins major changes to Ohio’s Military Deployment custody and visitation section. I may
be to only active party that knows the full story behind why these changes were first made, who the
parties were, and what their positions were that brought this to the attention of the legislature, and
then why a second round of changes to the laws and who supported it in the legislature.
Ohio is currently lagging greatly behind what has changed in other states, especially what Nebraska
has done.
Line 5371 – Very confusing definitions in this section. I am trying to figure out what is meant by calling
up someone for “including any period of illness” and why it was included when the section also contains
“recovery from injury”. Leave is time off while deployed or while in active service to the country, not a
condition of call-up.
Line 5379 – I had to look up the commissioned corps of the health service. As a short description, these
are members of active military branches and “first responders” who focus on public health. It would fall
under the active military branch clause and is unnecessary to list separately.
Line 5383 - Unnecessary section that should have been included in the next section. Does not say by
what method they are to inform the other party. The timeline for notification, as listed, is impossible to
meet by anyone in the military or reserve.
I asked a reserve Navy Commander and was given several sets of timelines that are dependent on
various conditions.
So, the Federal Government is obligated to give service members a minimum of 90 days' notice. The
member can waive that right.
I’ve never told anyone about my report date until I get orders in hand. So, they can tell you 90 days out.
You may wait 30 days until you have orders in hand. Then you have to read your orders. It will tell you
what your obligations are and your entitlements. The recall code is important. But they always mark
everyone involuntarily these days.
If you’re marked voluntary, you don’t have the same protections and benefits normally such as
differential pay.
Now you can know your deployment orders years in advance. You see this a lot with unit-wide orders. For
example, there may be four armor divisions reserve side in the Army Reserve. The Army deploys one for a
year, and has 6 months of workups for deployment. You know that you will be gone for 18 months once
every 4 years.
And your six-month spin-up will start halfway through the deployment for the org you’re relieving. Not
everyone is this lucky, though, and it depends on your MOS/Rating and how the DoD needs you. Often
referred to as subject to the needs of the service.
You then have dwell time, usually three months for every month deployed from Individual mobility.
considerations it shall be given.
Line 5368 – Overly broad factor
Line 5369 begins major changes to Ohio’s Military Deployment custody and visitation section. I may
be to only active party that knows the full story behind why these changes were first made, who the
parties were, and what their positions were that brought this to the attention of the legislature, and
then why a second round of changes to the laws and who supported it in the legislature.
Ohio is currently lagging greatly behind what has changed in other states, especially what Nebraska
has done.
Line 5371 – Very confusing definitions in this section. I am trying to figure out what is meant by calling
up someone for “including any period of illness” and why it was included when the section also contains
“recovery from injury”. Leave is time off while deployed or while in active service to the country, not a
condition of call-up.
Line 5379 – I had to look up the commissioned corps of the health service. As a short description, these
are members of active military branches and “first responders” who focus on public health. It would fall
under the active military branch clause and is unnecessary to list separately.
Line 5383 - Unnecessary section that should have been included in the next section. Does not say by
what method they are to inform the other party. The timeline for notification, as listed, is impossible to
meet by anyone in the military or reserve.
I asked a reserve Navy Commander and was given several sets of timelines that are dependent on
various conditions.
So, the Federal Government is obligated to give service members a minimum of 90 days' notice. The
member can waive that right.
I’ve never told anyone about my report date until I get orders in hand. So, they can tell you 90 days out.
You may wait 30 days until you have orders in hand. Then you have to read your orders. It will tell you
what your obligations are and your entitlements. The recall code is important. But they always mark
everyone involuntarily these days.
If you’re marked voluntary, you don’t have the same protections and benefits normally such as
differential pay.
Now you can know your deployment orders years in advance. You see this a lot with unit-wide orders. For
example, there may be four armor divisions reserve side in the Army Reserve. The Army deploys one for a
year, and has 6 months of workups for deployment. You know that you will be gone for 18 months once
every 4 years.
And your six-month spin-up will start halfway through the deployment for the org you’re relieving. Not
everyone is this lucky, though, and it depends on your MOS/Rating and how the DoD needs you. Often
referred to as subject to the needs of the service.
You then have dwell time, usually three months for every month deployed from Individual mobility.
Not applicable to unit-level deployments.
This also differs from Annual Training, or Schools that have no definite recall.
Are there any specific details or branches you need? I can pull publications that go into Title 10
entitlements and protections.
Line 5388 – If you read the above, it is clear that this is impossible to comply with and often premature.
Line 5395 – This is a premature hearing and adds costs to the operation of the court. Having to give
priority would cause delays in other cases.
Line 5401 – While this clause has been present since the first-time deployment rights were passed in
Ohio, it is in conflict with the next section.
Line 5405 – As I said, this section and the previous one does have conflicts with each other. The previous
sections say that service can’t be held against someone who is in the service of our nation, yet this one
does allow that by changing the current custody order. Yes, arrangements and minor changes need to
occur, but not a full and new order, temporary or not.
Line 5411 – May is overly broad and could include anything that the court wishes in its discretion to
throw into a temporary order. A temporary order sets up a status quo that courts are reluctant to
change down the road.
Line 5413 – As worded, this allows for a non-family member to be awarded the “parenting time” of the
deployed individual. Close family members are one this but certainly not a non-family member.
Line 5416 – “Reasonably available” is vague as to what amount of time the deployed party would be
allowed to spend with their child while on leave. What is reasonable to one person may not be
reasonable to someone else.
Line 5419 – As written, this would dictate that military policy about communications through phone or
computer be changed.
Line 5422 – Does not state how the court is notified that the deployment has ended. Does not state
what must be shown to object to the return of the original order by the party that opposes it.
Line 5429 – It is unclear and unstated whether the participation is to follow military protocol or the Ohio
Rules of Procedure and Rules of the Ohio Supreme Court with control. Out-of-country communication
rules can be very restrictive, depending on what mission the deployed party is on.
Line 5437 – As written, this requires that all parties, including that mysterious other party, make
notification to the Court and CSEA.
Line 5444 – This is in direct conflict with the previous sections that recognize “any other party”. By
adding and allowing “any other party” to participate standing was created.
Line 5450 – This is a description of a contempt order. It was done before in this bill.
This also differs from Annual Training, or Schools that have no definite recall.
Are there any specific details or branches you need? I can pull publications that go into Title 10
entitlements and protections.
Line 5388 – If you read the above, it is clear that this is impossible to comply with and often premature.
Line 5395 – This is a premature hearing and adds costs to the operation of the court. Having to give
priority would cause delays in other cases.
Line 5401 – While this clause has been present since the first-time deployment rights were passed in
Ohio, it is in conflict with the next section.
Line 5405 – As I said, this section and the previous one does have conflicts with each other. The previous
sections say that service can’t be held against someone who is in the service of our nation, yet this one
does allow that by changing the current custody order. Yes, arrangements and minor changes need to
occur, but not a full and new order, temporary or not.
Line 5411 – May is overly broad and could include anything that the court wishes in its discretion to
throw into a temporary order. A temporary order sets up a status quo that courts are reluctant to
change down the road.
Line 5413 – As worded, this allows for a non-family member to be awarded the “parenting time” of the
deployed individual. Close family members are one this but certainly not a non-family member.
Line 5416 – “Reasonably available” is vague as to what amount of time the deployed party would be
allowed to spend with their child while on leave. What is reasonable to one person may not be
reasonable to someone else.
Line 5419 – As written, this would dictate that military policy about communications through phone or
computer be changed.
Line 5422 – Does not state how the court is notified that the deployment has ended. Does not state
what must be shown to object to the return of the original order by the party that opposes it.
Line 5429 – It is unclear and unstated whether the participation is to follow military protocol or the Ohio
Rules of Procedure and Rules of the Ohio Supreme Court with control. Out-of-country communication
rules can be very restrictive, depending on what mission the deployed party is on.
Line 5437 – As written, this requires that all parties, including that mysterious other party, make
notification to the Court and CSEA.
Line 5444 – This is in direct conflict with the previous sections that recognize “any other party”. By
adding and allowing “any other party” to participate standing was created.
Line 5450 – This is a description of a contempt order. It was done before in this bill.
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 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 in the 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 visitor.”
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 with 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 in the 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 visitor.”
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 with 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.
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.
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.
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
