The Most Dangerous Attorney in Ohio
September 19, 2025
Dangerous, and you can’t hire her.
Dangerous, and you are paying her salary.
She is intentionally dragging her feet on conservative and pro-family-oriented legislation, as well as other conservative bills. All while speeding through liberal bills that will harm families in this state.
Dangerous and refuses to listen and understand what she is
told when she asks a question.
She will ask the same question again, hoping for a
different answer.
Dangerous because she doesn’t understand simple legal concepts that are taught in every law school in the Nation.
Dangerous as she pushes her own agenda and acts in a partisan and very liberal manner while working for a sector of Ohio’s government that is supposed to be nonpartisan.
I have had her “review” bills that I have written over the years, and she wants to change them immediately, even when they have been previously introduced.
She claimed a bill that I wrote and was previously introduced (SB144 & HB253) didn’t meet “LSC writing standards.” When I asked for a copy of those standards, she went silent and immediately put the proposal back to how I had written it.
She doesn’t like to be stood up to and will go pouting off if you do. The best description is that she is a bully.
She is the one who took McNeese and crew’s 4-page proposal to 289 pages, which did not do what the representative claimed it would do. She bifurcated the factors so that each had to be argued separately, which would increase litigation 10-fold. Her writing is only part of why those bills (HB508 & HB14) failed.
Reading SB174, I will say that her writing style and approach to family law and families show clearly in this very bad legislation. Even her claims about what it does are misguided. She does not understand the cause and effect of changes to any law. Understanding the cause and effect is key to writing a good bill, while not understanding it will cause a failed bill and a waste of time in the legislature and committees.
Other bills and current proposals are in the works.
HB256 – Presumption of equality for never-married fathers. Sounds like a noble cause and something that should be passed without question. That would be until the language of the bill is examined closely, and what will happen if this becomes law. Real-world experience is what it takes to understand the consequences, not a law degree from a liberal college.
Since this comes up for committee hearing testimony by the sponsors this week, I am going to break it down line by line.
HB256 – Presumption of equality for never-married fathers. Sounds like a noble cause and something that should be passed without question. That would be until the language of the bill is examined closely, and what will happen if this becomes law. Real-world experience is what it takes to understand the consequences, not a law degree from a liberal college.
Since this comes up for committee hearing testimony by the sponsors on September 24, 2025 (it is the first bill discussed[1]), I am going to break it down line by line.
Line 6 – According to Black’s law, presumptions are rebuttable by nature, and it does not need to be restated.
Line 14 – Still requires that a parent-child relationship be established. Presumption is rebutted if paternity is admitted, which is the same as the current law.
Line 20 – Curious how this is going to play when a father does not know he is a father and finds out after the child has grown.
Line 24 – This will be a cookie-cutter approach and, as written, does not allow any other arrangement than equal residential custody.
Line 27 – Does not describe what happens if the parents do not agree.
Line 30 – Contradicts what the purpose of the amendment is, in my opinion, as it still gives all legal rights to the mother.
Line 32 – Does not describe how the decision will be made by the court or what factors will be used. What is the level of scrutiny that is to be used?
Line 40 – This describes contempt proceedings, but there cannot be contempt without a written order from the court.
Line 45 – This section brings the first reference to Ohio’s shared parenting statute, which contains the factors for determining custody. The evidentiary standard of preponderance stays the same.
Line 50 – Frivolous line since this is covered by UCCJEA
Line 54 – The changes in this area will be the most used to stop the presumption. I am going to predict an increase in claims of rape when unmarried parents walk into court.
LSC analyses of the bill – See Here
Representative LaRe testimony – See Here
Representative Williams' testimony – See Here
Other Bills
Child support in the budget –
Child support bill from 1998 -
I have discussed several pieces of family law-related legislation with legislators on both sides of the aisle.
I discussed with a state representative after I heard she was intending to introduce a bill about false allegations, similar to what Texas has done. While I never saw her bill or that it had even been introduced, I did show her how I handle that within the full bill.
There are other bills that I have discussed and I am currently watching. I will add those in the near future.
Legislative Director
440-281-5478
legislation@ohiofamilyrights.com
