The following was submitted to the Senate Finance Committee in opposition to parts of the state budget. Hopefully the make these changes, if not, we will go back to fight it again when the budget returns to the House.

PDF format

Senate Finance Committee

HB98 – Opposition

Chairman Jerry C. Cirino, Vice Chair Brian M. Chavez, Ranking Paula Hicks-Hudson, and the rest of the members of the Senate finance Committee. I would like to thank you for the privilege of providing my written testimony in opposition to some problems that I have found within the State Operating budget. This is an ever-moving target of changes as is usual for the state budget and that comments and problems come from the House passed version of HB96.

My name is Ray Lautenschlager and I am the Legislative Director for Ohio Family Rights. While the majority of my duties are to work with legislators on changes to Ohio’s approach to custody, I also watch for bad bills that also work against parents in Ohio. It amazes me sometimes how simple words changes make it into proposed changes to law that do far more harm than good. My testimony before you will address a couple of those issues.

 

Changes in Chapter 31

There are some changes here that need to be laid on the table until they can be discussed in an individual and more transparent manner. Burying them in 9000 pages of ever-changing pages of the operating budget does not permit the changes within to be thoroughly discussed.  When there is an admission that there will be increased costs to implement the changes, we need to proceed with care and seek another solution.

There is another solution that has been missed and that is in the Child Support Guidelines Review which will come before the proposed changes would take place. After that process, the rules would likely have to be rewritten again. Dropping the changes from the budget is a better use of resources for all.

 

Line 29956, as shown here, reduces the timeline for the adoption of a child to the second that the child is moved into the home.  This would remove a natural parent from being a first preference to attempt to adopt the child. This is a drastic change that disadvantages a young man who may have just found out that he fathered a child and is seeking to take the first steps toward adoption.

That timeline is echoed in Lines 30019 – 30021, again placing a natural parent at a disadvantage versa a total stranger to the child.

Something that needs to be taken note of, the Putative Fathers Registry is not well advertised and not made known to young men. They often find out about it when their time to make use of its protections has expired.

 

Lines  30126 – 30130 Child support enforcement does not need access to files within the Putative Fathers Registry. Registering is not an admission of paternity, only a notice that a young man may have been intimate with a girl in a way that she may have gotten pregnant. It is a notice to the state that this has happened and that he wants to be notified if the child is placed for adoption.

 

 

The changes in the next sections go in contradiction to long-fought-for changes to the adoption records that were passed several years ago. Those changes have reunited adopted children with their natural parents and have allowed the child to get family medical histories that would only be known by a natural parent.

The changes in the following sections serve no purpose and save no money for the taxpayers. The changes are nothing more than a shuffling of the deck of cards and the creation of more unnecessary bureaucracy. Changing language in the ORC just to change language that serves no purpose is a waste of government resources.

 

 

Line 30606 as shown below changes this section such that anyone, even those not involved with the trust fund or in child abuse prevention to request money from the fund.

The use of entity is repeated on Line 30622.

The changes here should be reserved for discussion during the Child Support Guidelines Review process. Burying them with the budget creates a look of lack of transparency in a process that obligors and obligees should have a voice in.

 

 

 

Ohio Judicial Conference

In Budget notes LSC commented that the OJC’s purpose was to comment on and address issues with jury instructions. Yet when we look at their activity, they have done nothing in the area since 2022. If they have not had to do anything in this area, why do they need an increase in funding?

The Supreme Court does provide Continuing Educational Instruction which would be the best place to discuss jury instructions as well as get feedback form the judges of the state.

 

 

 

Ohio Domestic Violence Network

Discussing cutting funding here is going to be a taboo subject for some. I will start this by saying I am a domestic violence survivor and I understand the severity of the issue.

What I have to question is why grant any increase in funding to a non-profit that operates in unequal basis.  I sent a message to ODVN asking them to identify which of their members provide shelter for men and their children. They did not answer my question with which do.

With the assistance of others, we asked each member organization if they provide shelter for men and their children. The majority did not respond and of the listed members in their network of 78, only 6 said that they do. This is not equal or even proportionate to the figures they used in the report they published on the high cost of domestic violence in Ohio. Until they can provide proof of equivalent services for bother genders their funding should be reduced accordingly. These services should also include free legal services.

When you read through their tax returns, they show only one paid employee and many volunteers.

Expenses are for attorneys which common sense tells me are for lobbying assistance. Are we as taxpayers funding ODVN to lobby the State of Ohio for funding to lobby the state for more money?

Why increase funds to any organization with a low return on investment?

 

 

As you read through their network organizations it is clear that there are redundant services in many counties. That is not an effective use of funds in any business model.

The following are pages from ODVN’s federal tax returns which will further explain and show the lack of return on investment and where their funds come from and who they are going to. Read them carefully before you consider an increase in funds.

Until they provide equal services throughout their network for men and women their fund should be reduced in a manner that is proportioned to how they do provide for both genders.

 

These show outside funds that they receive.

While they admit to providing free legal services, they do not provide those to men.