Chair Manning (00:01):

The next order of business is call Senate Bill one seventy four for its second hearing and we will hear proponent testimony from Judge Randy Fuller on behalf of the Ohio Judicial Conference. Welcome Judge.

Judge Fuller (00:12):

Morning Chair Manning, vice Chair Reynolds and ranking member Hicks Hudson and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I thank you for this opportunity to provide proponent testimony in support of Senate Bill 1 74 on behalf of the Ohio Judicial Conference, my name is Randy Fuller. I'm the domestic relations judge in Delaware County and I've been honored to serve in this position for the last eight years. This hearing was scheduled perfectly on my calendar today because at the Supreme Court we're holding new judge orientation week and so I had the honor to teach new domestic relations judges. I'd like to just take a moment to introduce, we took a class field trip, so we have Judge Petre from Muskegon. No, not Montgomery County Judge Conley from Lucas County and then my fellow teacher Judge Denise McCauley retired. So thank you for allowing me to introduce

Chair Manning (01:02):

Welcome judges.

Judge Fuller (01:04):

I'd like to first give a little bit of background about this bill because I think it is very important. The history of this bill began in 1999 when the General Assembly created the Ohio Task Force on family law and children. Later the subcommittee on Family Law reform implementation was created and Judge McCauley was a former chair of that committee and this year I became the chair of that committee. The group has created a child-centered approach when allocating parental rights and responsibilities over the last several years. The work group's 19 page recommendations has turned into a 400 plus bill with a lot of cross-references to other statutes. It was introduced last year as Senate Bill 3 25. Senate Bill 1 74 has gone through a collaborative process to get to this point. Last fall, a group of domestic relation judges and juvenile court judges met with house representatives to discuss additional areas of agreement for family law reform.

(02:04):

Many of these ideas were added to the bill, including language about maximizing parenting time in reforming temporary order process. Further amendments were suggested by interested parties including the Ohio Child Support Directors Association and members of the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood. These suggestions were included as the introduced version of Senate Bill 174 making this bill a truly collaborative effort between the legislature, the judiciary and family law community. There are several highlights I want to just touch on briefly today to point out some important improvements to the Ohio law. This bill would create first, as I indicated, Senate Bill 174 will create a child-centered approach and eliminates terms such as a residential parent and custodial parent. The intent of doing this is to remove the perception that one parent has more power or authority than the other parent. This was a deliberate decision to help minimize adversarial nature of this type of proceeding.

(03:08):

Current law allows for modification of parenting plan only when there's a change of circumstances with the residential parent or child. It does not allow for a change of or a modification. If there is a change of circumstances with a non-residential parent as we are getting rid of the terms residential parent, it would allow for the what we'd now call a non-residential parent to ask the court for a modification or of the parental responsibilities if something in their life has changed or improved. We are also changing the term parental rights and responsibilities to parenting responsibilities. This is done to again show we're focusing on the child and what is in the best interest of the child and not to make it sound like we're dividing property or assets. All parenting responsibilities will be allocated in the parenting plan under current law. If the parties do not submit a shared parenting plan, the court cannot grant shared parenting and we cannot modify shared parenting plans and create a different one ourselves. We have to rely on what's submitted to us under Senate Bill 174. It will allow the court to determine what's in the best interest and create plans and this will certainly be an improvement for self-represented litigants.

(04:28):

All parenting responsibilities allocated in the plan ensure that parents share in the responsibilities of raising a child, enabling a child to enjoy meaningful relationship with both parents and maximizing parenting time with each parent when it's in the best interest of the children. Senate Bill 174 expands the best interest of the child to include actions when a parent tries to mislead the court or purposely tries to create delay in the court proceedings. It also takes into consideration the recommendations of other court appointed professionals and looks at the parent's ability to provide for the child's daily needs. Many of these items highlight the goal to make the bill as a father friendly as possible while not taking away rights from the mother. This is achieved by keeping the focus squarely where it should be and that is on the best interest of the minor child. The bill also contains an un codified provision that requires domestic relations courts to review their standard local rules on parenting time and bring it into compliance with this bill's provisions. This update will help courts have a more unified local rule throughout the state of Ohio. I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit proponent testimony on behalf of the Ohio Judicial Conference for Senate Bill 174. I want to thank Senators Gavarone and Hicks Hudson for sponsoring this legislation and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Chair Manning (05:55):

Thank you judge. Any questions from committee? I do have one question. So you said the local rules, what are the most common local rules now under, excuse me, under current law? I know they're all somewhat different, but are there some consistencies out there?

Judge Fuller (06:11):

Well, is a requirement for every court to have a local rule and their local rule includes a visitation schedule. There's been some dispute over the years as far as whether that's the one the court normally does or it's kind of like the minimum level. But every court in the state of Ohio is required to have local rules including visitation schedule and this bill, the un codified provision would require courts to look at it and one of the provisions in Senate Bill 174 is to maximize the amount of parenting time for the parents and that would be something that judges would've to look at to see whether or not their local rule currently does that.

Chair Manning (06:46):

And just, I mean specifically are they like 75, 25, 60 40? I know there's obviously differences, but what's the most common do you think?

Judge Fuller (06:54):

I'm sorry, chair. I started to talk every court is different Historically I would say the average right now would be every other weekend, midweek overnight, half the summer, split the holidays.

Chair Manning (07:07):

How do you foresee whether it's your court or maybe other courts in your discussions with your colleagues, what it would be moving forward for most courts?

Judge Fuller (07:18):

As the common adage that in Ohio we have 88 little states and 88 different ways of doing things. I certainly can't stand up here and tell you what other courts are going to do. What I foresee is probably several courts in Ohio currently have different schedules, so it might include a minimum schedule, it might include a 50 50 schedule, it might include a long distance schedule. It could also include a schedule when you have minor children because if a child is one or two, the visitation schedules probably should look different than if the child's 15 or 16. So my guess will be you'll see a more variety of plans and plans that would give both would give the parent more equal time.

Chair Manning (08:02):

Ranking Member Hicks Hudson,

Senator Hicks-Hudson (08:04):

I wasn't going to ask this question judge, but thank you for being here and thank you Mr. Chair for asking the question. You asked about the potential impact for local rules. Can you talk a little bit more about the input or the, I don't call it influence, but the opportunity for the Fatherhood Commission to really weigh in on this because as we talked yesterday, there are many who feel that even with this update, it's still going to leave that I don't want to just, I'll say the, I can't even figure out the other parent who would not have that equal time and the question about moving from best interest to that idea about the 50 50 split then the court working from that way. So could you just give us a little bit more information about the of fathers into this process please?

Judge Fuller (08:59):

Certainly. And thank through the chair to the senator. This bill is more of a father friendly bill. It looks at maximizing parenting time with both children or with both parents. As an attorney practicing in domestic relations law for over 20 years before I took the bench, I'd often counsel my clients. What we really need to focus on is how to maximize quality time with the children for both parents. That's very important. That's what the court in Delaware County that we do is we look how to maximize the time. 50 50 is a noble goal. I had a lot of people come into my office as an attorney saying they want that, but I think it's good to talk through that to see what they're actually looking for. Again, maximizing the quality time with both parents is what's ideal. And then a provision in this bill, which indicates that if either party request 50 50 parenting time, if the court's not going to grant substantially equal time, the court has to make findings of facts and conclusions of law to show that it's not in the child's best interest for the substantially equal parenting time. I think that's a big step in that direction to show that how important it is for both parents, fathers and mothers to spend significant time with their minor children.

Chair Manning (10:22):

Senator Cutrona?

Senator Cutrona (10:23):

To the chair, to the witness. So can you explain a little bit more on the custody? When a mother is unmarried, it shows that to the bill that they would get sole designated parent and then with having a rise in unmarried mothers, do you see this being an issue with continuous litigious situations For the male A for the father,

Judge Fuller (10:49):

Thank you much through the chair. Senator. I was going to make a comment about continuous litigation because in domestic relations courts we certainly see that from case to case, but we have to understand what we're dealing with in domestic relations cases is what's most important to people. It's their children, it's their property, it's their house, but most importantly it's their children. So we are going to see cases no matter what we do that has continuous litigation, I wish one of the things I'm trying to do as a judge is find better ways to resolve disputes, not just going to trial, but by doing dispute resolution processes like parent coaching and other things to help parents because at the end of the day, what we need to have these parents do is be able to co-parent and that's the goal. But as far as the unmarried cases, the current statute indicates that there would be a two-step process for determining paternity and then a separate action for a parenting time under Senate Bill 174, it has it as the same action, so it should make it easier and less complicated for fathers of unmarried children to be able to petition the court and get companionship time and visitation time, however you want to say it with the child.

(12:04):

I don't think that the Senate bill 174 would increase litigation though because of that.

Senator Cutrona (12:11):

Philip, and then just one follow up the chair to the witness. I know that there was some conversations about the timeframe there. Why not just make the standard across the board through all a DA counties just 50 50 and then work from there up or down? Why not just take that approach versus doing a every other weekend midweek overnight? Can you speak to that a little bit? Absolutely.

Judge Fuller (12:35):

Senator, through the chair, I have a couple of different points on that. Number one, most cases that come to court are done by agreement, so we have a lot of disillusions that are filed that's a termination of marriage. When the parties already agree to everything upfront, most divorces don't go to trial. Most divorces get settled short of court. So the vast majority of cases, people are having the control over the outcome of the case that they want to see have happen. The reality is, and this is my experience from in private practice and as a judge, some people don't want 50 50, but most importantly to me is we need to focus on what's in the best interest of the child. Quite frankly, in domestic relations cases, sometimes it's not about what's fair for the parent, it's what's best for the child. I've had cases where it may not feel fair that one parent is getting more or less time, they feel that they might be the better parent, but when you're focusing on what is best for the child that looks beyond just what's fair for an individual person. And to me the most important thing is creating a co-parent relationship. So you can raise a child to be a successful member of the community and sometimes anybody that's a parent knows you have to make sacrifices and that's why I think it's best to focus primarily on what's good for the kid, not what's good for the parent.

Chair Manning (14:03):

Senator Gavarone,

Senator Gavarone (14:08):

Thank you so much for your testimony today. I've heard people say that temporary orders can sometimes set the stage and that once the temporary orders are done, sometimes that's just presumed to continue. I've heard people argue that point. Can you address how this bill kind of changes that?

Judge Fuller (14:29):

Absolutely. And temporary orders are so important in domestic relations cases because you often issue temporary orders and I'm sorry, I always forget with the formality through the chair, Senator, I'm used to talking in my screen not having the procedure, I apologize. But in domestic relations cases, when we're issuing temporary orders, it's a situation where the parties are separating and they have chaos in their life. There's no order. You have people rushing to school to get the kids, you have people rushing to other places. It's a chaotic environment, so it's important to put temporary orders on early in a case when the parents aren't in agreement. Again, most of the cases parents can reach agreements and we don't have to do it, but in the cases that we have to do temporary orders, we have to issue temporary orders to create a calm order for the family. And this bill, Senate bill 174 says that you can't have anchor bias or you can't have the temporary orders dictate or affect what your ultimate outcome in the case is and it shouldn't. Temporary orders a lot of times are done by affidavit or very, very short hearings and the court doesn't have full information. The court should be basing the final decision after the court has heard all the information and it shouldn't be tied to what the temporary orders are. And Senate Bill 174 does just that

Chair Manning (15:50):

Ranking. Member Hicks Hudson.

Senator Hicks-Hudson (15:53):

Thank you Mr. Chair and also thank you for your comments and your response to questions this issue about 50 50 versus best interest. Can you talk a little bit about how we got to this idea about best interest and not just if you know not just from the legal aspect of it, but also the psychological and the social emotional kinds of reasons why the factors for best interest were created and why it is almost like the gold standard within this area of child welfare, child custody, and not just for domestic relations court, but also for juvenile court. As I told you yesterday, much of my practices is in juvenile court and many of my clients are our fathers seeking to become really an active and engaged parent with their child. So if you could just talk a little bit about how we got to the question about best interest, it would be helpful I think for not only, not for us because we kind of get it because we were practitioners, but for other folks who might be listening in Thank you

Judge Fuller (17:05):

Through the chair to the senator, thank you for that question. And let me be clear, I think 50 50 time is great if that's what works for the family, if that's what works for the child, that is fantastic. A lot of cases we see substantially equal time between mother and father. That's a wonderful thing to do. But you have, as you mentioned with in more the never married or the paternity docket, the parties that have not been married but have children. You may have a situation where either party has not seen the child in five years, in 10 years and it's coming to court asking for companionship time. That's not a case that it would be usually good to say, okay, you get 50 50 right off the bat, the child would need to build a relationship with that parent prior to moving to that much time with the parent.

(17:54):

So it's hard when you say 50 50, I want to be clear that judicial conferences position is not against 50 50. It's good, but it's not what's good in every case. You have cases where like I said, the child is never seen the parent before. You have cases where you have a lot of people that have jobs, they just cannot exercise a 50 50 schedule. And so what is most important is what is best for that child and anybody has become a parent the first time you hold your child, you know that you're going to change your life because you're going to do what's best for this child and that should always be the focus of the court and I would say it's in the best interest of the state for the courts to be looking at what's best for the child because you want them to be successful citizens, you want 'em to go to school, you want 'em to graduate, get jobs, go to college, whatever you have, and the best way to do that is to have two parents that are working together focusing on what is the best interest of the child and more focused on what is the best interest of the child than is it exactly 50 50.

Chair Manning (18:56):

See you. No further questions. Thank you once again, judge. I really appreciate it.

Judge Fuller (18:59):

Thank you very much.

Chair Manning (19:00):

Next we'll hear proponent testimony from Eric Johnson on behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association, welcome.

Eric Johnson (19:10):

Thank you, and good morning Chairman Manning, ranking member Hicks Hudson, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Eric Johnson. I am an Ohio State Bar Association certified specialist in family relations law and the past chair of the OBA's Family Law Committee. I have practiced exclusively in the field of family law for the past 21 years and have been licensed. I did the math the other day for a total of 35 years in this state and I can't believe that it is a pleasure to be before you all here today to offer testimony on behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association in support of Senate Bill 1 74. This bill offers a long overdue updates to Ohio Law as they relate to addressing the needs of Ohio's children in divorcing and divorced families or whose parents were otherwise unable to parent together but must parent through separate homes.

(20:08):

The last changes of any significance to the laws of this state as they relate to parenting occurred about 35 years ago. Prior to that time, I think many of us, some of us anyway, remember that the situation was usually where a court would give one parent custody, give the other parent visitation. This visitation was quite often just nothing more than once a week for a couple of hours and every other weekend, and this was the norm. Joint custody did exist, but it was uncommon and often discouraged as being too complicated. The standards around joint custody were also not very concrete in 1990 then Senate bill three was introduced and eventually passed. It started to move Ohio away from the practice of custody and visitation and focused more on an approach toward the needs of the best interests of the child.

(21:14):

Importantly, Senate Bill three introduced the concept of shared parenting, which took over for joint custody and it was emphasized and embraced in that bill and eventually the statute by both the parents and the courts of Ohio. It has continued to grow as a concept and certainly is very different than what things were like 30 years ago. Shared parenting was built around the idea that parents should be and entitled to work together cooperatively in matters related to their children. Yet old notions continue to persist and to linger and parents were often still and continue to this day to battle for still custody. The term legal custodian permeates our statutes and remains present even in our shared parenting plans. Through my experience, reasonable and unreasonable parents alike often fight over the supremacy of their parental rights while their children are stuck in the middle and while courts have slowly expanded their standard parenting time schedules and many continue to use the week on week off approach as their primary default Senate Bill 174 is designed to change that.

(22:32):

It's based on the investigation report and recommendations of a task force consisting of two dozen members from across numerous disciplines. It was created and funded by the General Assembly and designed so that the ideas and opinions of those assortment of individuals from very different professions could be heard and debated. The ultimate recommendation of that task force was that the laws and rules of the state of Ohio reflect that parents have a continuing roles and responsibilities as parents when they're not living together. Based on that guiding principle, Senate Bill 1 74 utilizes the task force's recommendations by including such provisions as removing terms of empowerment that increase conflict between parents. I can't tell you how many times I had one parent come into my office and say, so-and-so's a good parent, but I need custody. I am going to get custody. I need to be the custodial parent.

(23:37):

It removes those terms of empowerment and puts both parents on equal footing. The bill will require courts to create developmentally appropriate guidelines for children when they issue parenting plans. Right now, there really is no standard and this of courts have been able to do this in some will, but the parenting time schedule and the parenting needs of a child who is four years old differ very significantly from a child who is 16, of course will now be required to address the different stages of a child's development when creating parenting plans or the parents themselves will have to address those.

(24:16):

The bill continues to use the best interest standard but also expands upon the factors which a court may consider including consideration of court appointed professionals who were not recognized at the time Senate Bill three was passed 35 years ago. It also requires the allocation of parenting functions and responsibilities in every case to be presented in a singular parenting plan, whether it's issued by a court or by agreement of the parties. It's going to be one document no matter what case, what kind of case comes before the court. All parents are going to get a singular document that does the same thing. Everyone will be treated equally. Senate Bill 1 74 though also addresses concerns that were not directly confronted by the task force 20 years ago. This is in recognition of various interests and interested groups who have come before this legislature in the past and to try to offer their suggestions with regard to parenting of Ohio's children in divorce situations.

(25:29):

Now, a court will be required to grant substantially equal parenting time if requested by at least one of the parents unless the court specifically determines that such time is not in the best interest of a child and the court issues separate findings of fact. Now, often that will also mean that the attorneys who are drafting these plans are going to have to create those findings of fact and trust me, we don't necessarily like creating more work for ourselves, but you know what? If it's a good idea, it's a good idea. This approach follows the approaches taken by, I know at least Oregon and Missouri, who recognizing the interests of parents in trying to gain as much ability to parent their children as possible through the use of most equal parenting time. A way to address that without just mandating a single cookie cutter approach to all cases.

(26:27):

Senate Bill 174 will also as discussed previously by Judge Fuller, will mandate that there is no presumption created by the issuance of temporary orders. These orders are issued at the onset of cases when the dust is flying everywhere. Parents are still living in the same homes, they will be moving later. Nobody's figured out how to get Susie to practice or Billy to school and of courts are given very limited information. But there is a concern out there that once the temporary orders are issued, it creates a presumption for how the rest of the case is going to go. Courts are specifically directed that that will not be the case and when a hearing is requested on temporary orders and changing those temporary orders, a court must give expedited consideration of holding a hearing on temporary orders and I believe it's within 28 days. And should a parenting decision be appealed to the Court of Appeals Court must give it expedited primacy on its calendar.

(27:32):

Excuse me. No, I could go on and give you Eric Johnson's 15 other greatest hits in this bill. I do appreciate all the work that Senator Hicks Hudson and Senator Gavarone put into this and thank them both for sponsoring this. I however, want to be mindful of this committee's time and I know that you will hear much more testimony on various provisions of this bill On behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association, I respectfully urge that this committee favorably report this bill and I thank you for your time and we'll be happy to answer any questions

Chair Manning (28:11):

Ranking Member Hicks Hudson.

Senator Hicks-Hudson (28:14):

Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you so much. It's good to see you after so many years and I appreciate your comments and the work that's done because I think we have to be very thoughtful in this particular area of the law. So I just want to say thank you

Eric Johnson (28:31):

Chairman Manning, Senator Hicks Hudson, thank you very much. I sincerely appreciate your comments.

Chair Manning (28:36):

So I asked Judge Fuller probably an unfair question about the local rules and what is currently happening across all 88 counties and what maybe will happen if this bill becomes law. Just in your practicing in different counties, what is the most common current local rules for schedule and do you think this bill will change those local rules and how So

Eric Johnson (29:00):

Senator Manning, thank you. I will address that first question first, yes, the bill will change things. I do not practice and did not practice in all 88 counties. My experience in the practice that I did have was that some communities and more rural areas were slower to adopt and adapt their local rules to more modernized approach. While other courts, for instance here in Franklin County gave us four different options as far as possible parenting schedules, what's the most common one? It's really hard to say. It depends where you are. I wish I had a great answer for you. I think some of them still really do rely on the rules they had in place 30 years ago that said, you know what? We're going to start with this every other weekend and this once a week, but our minds are open, convince us to give more. My experience also walking into courts is that I've been told by numerous judges and numerous magistrates that I don't care what our local rule says, we're going to start with two responsible parents with the idea that we're going to allocate between them as much equal time as possible. It doesn't say that in the statutes, it doesn't say that in the rules, but it's kind of what's happening. But the rules themselves, they're kind of all over the place.

(30:29):

I think some of the courts are going to be a little concerned about the work that they're going to have to do when they get back to their rules and they're going to have to really, really change things and they will, one of the on codified sections of this bill requires them to review those rules to make those changes. I believe that that was also one of the suggestions made. Well, I know I made that suggestion last year in opposition to house Bill 14, the equal parenting bill. When I said having a standardized set of rules would be best for everybody, but we will move away from that. Courts are going to just have to put in a little bit of work now to do so.

Chair Manning (31:09):

And Senator brought up how it's treated differently for unmarried. I thankfully don't practice domestic relations law very much so I'm not really sure how that works. Currently, our unmarried fathers treated differently and Judge Fuller pointed out if they're not in the life for five years, certainly that's a different story. But let's assume it's at birth and they prove that. Prove that the male is the father of the child. How is that treated differently than a divorced couple under current law? And then how do you think that would maybe change under the bill if at all?

Eric Johnson (31:49):

Well under current Law and Senate Bill 174 will kind of keep this initial test in place. An unmarried mother who gives birth to a child, it will be designated at first well custodial parent if you will, the term that we currently use it any rate, A lot of that is just because that's the way it needs to happen because if you need to get that child benefits, if you have to get that child medical treatment, there has to be somebody empowered to do so. So by operation of law, the mother who has given birth to the child is designated that person. Sadly, as we know, not all fathers are around for their children at the birth or in alone afterwards. So this is why that sort of rules in place under current law. Well, on the past law, a father would have to come to court initially prove parentage and then ask the court to be granted rights and then have to prove how much he deserved to get as far as parenting time, that changed a little bit where sometime, I can't remember how far back in the past now, the legislature passed a provision has said that the parents will stand on equal footing in those cases.

(33:10):

And so that was a good thing. They should stand on equal footing. The court shouldn't have any sort of presumption that a mother is a better parent than a father just because she gave birth and was legally designated the custodian. What I think this bill will do is it gives fathers even a better chance because now everything's going to go into the parenting plan. I think through my experience that quite often when unmarried fathers come into court and ask for time, there's more of a sort of feeling that, well, you didn't grow up raising this child together. Maybe it's really not going to be shared parenting. Do you need shared parenting? Now we get rid of share parenting now you don't say you have visitation and mom, you have custody. Now you say both of you, here are the responsibilities that you have outlined in this plan. It's the same plan that we will give to the next person that walks into our court. It's the same type of plan that we're going to give the divorcing couple that walks into the court next. So I think it really moves things along for unwed fathers to even give them more protection and more rights, if you will, than they currently have.

Chair Manning (34:21):

Thank you. Appreciate your testimony and see no further questions. Thank you.

Eric Johnson (34:28):

Thank you

Chair Manning (34:28):

All your time. Next we'll hear proponent testimony from Lisa DeGeeter on behalf of the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. Welcome,

Lisa DeGeeter (34:37):

Good morning, chair Manning ranking member and sponsor, Hicks Hudson sponsor Gavarone and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Lisa DeGeeter and I currently serve as the Senior Director of Policy and Prevention for the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. ODVN is Ohio's federally designated DV coalition representing 76 local organizations throughout the state. And there is in the written testimony some information about the numbers of folks we serve and the kind of services we provide. And rather than rehearse everything that's here based on prior testimony and the questions you're asking, I'd really like to be able to explain to you why for survivors of domestic violence, this bill is so incredibly important in leveling the playing field for survivors and their children to be safe when they walk into domestic relations court. We know that our programs work with families that are dealing with divorce and custody and safe parenting time and that domestic violence is present in a large number of litigated custody cases and has been previously stated.

(35:57):

The majority of cases actually resolve good, bad or indifferent. Parents can figure out what they want to do and what they're able to do, explain that to the court and get it done. About 90% of cases are resolved without significant court intervention, but in that last 10% of cases, there's a disproportionate number of folks who have either experienced domestic violence on the part of the parent or the child has experienced child abuse at the hands of one of the parents, about 60 to 75% of the 10%. And it's important to understand those stats in sequence. But when you look at that 10% who really need court intervention, the bulk of them have significant safety concerns in the background. And when Ohio survivors come into either juvenile court or domestic relation court, they have to navigate a system that currently doesn't address the complexities of those acts of abuse.

(37:07):

And there's a reliance on the civil justice system on things that may or may not happen in the criminal justice system, even though there are differences in what is and isn't evidence what can be used when. And there's a lot of strategy involved with attorneys determining whether or not someone should seek a protection order because if you have one and walk into DR Court, it looks like you're trying to gain an advantage. And so people choose not to see remedies that would keep themselves and their children safer because they don't want it misinterpreted elsewhere. The law currently asks survivors to co-parent with a person who either harmed them or may have harmed their child and then measures how well they do that job based on how well they cooperate with their abuser. There's a family law attorney and noted scholar who terms it this way that victims of DV are the only victims who if they have children, are forced to communicate with their assailants weekly, sometimes even daily, and then are judged about how nice they are in doing that.

(38:16):

So ODVN and our member programs and a number of allied professional organizations support Senate Bill 174 for all of the reasons you've already heard, it promotes child safety. It protects families. It does not create presumptions around time. It removes outdated legal language, strengthens child safety and elevates children's voices. There are provisions within the bill that allow judges to do in-camera interviews and stop parent or party attorneys from leaning on kids to try and force them to make statements. It clarifies what remedies are available when and to whom it prohibits a court from favoring a parent based on housing status, income or gender. And I think it's very important that an organization like ODVN underscores that this is not a women's or a moms issue. I've also spent nearly 20 years teaching for the state Supreme Court around rule 48 for guardians ad litem. And we talk constantly about the fact that if moms or dads win, kids lose, children have needs and the adults in their lives have a responsibility to meet those needs.

(39:36):

And this bill helps courts frame those decisions in a framework that allows them to prioritize kids' needs. This is not a moms should win or a dad should win kind of question. Kids should get the care they need and deserve and whoever is being harmed should be able to seek redress in the courts to be safer. And whoever is committing harm regardless of gender, should be held accountable for the damage that they are doing. So this bill will give judges better tools, clearer guidance to make decisions that are rooted in safety and help the participants in the litigation because as people have mentioned, this is going to require some written findings. If people make any kind of variation, it will allow the parties to better understand why some of the rules that are put in place are put in place. And if I may, having heard the questions that have been asked to prior folks, one of the questions that keeps coming up is local rules.

(40:47):

What's going on? Now, ODDN does serve programs in all 88 counties and the short and somewhat snarky answer is it's a little bit of a mess because it's a little bit different everywhere. But there is a bit of a cookie cutter has been described one night and every other weekend in a standard order. And that is really an issue of judicial economy. It's about efficiency. If we don't know what else we're going to do, we have a backstop. And the reality is those kind of standards orders don't take into account child development. What a two-week-old needs is very different from what a 2-year-old needs is different from a 12-year-old is different from a 16-year-old. And in the written testimony, there are a couple of links because you've heard folks say that there was a task force. And the first link in the testimony is actually the link to that task force report that was written about 24 years ago, the second link, because what Chief Justice Moyer at that point in time did was create a second task force to review the work of the first task force and the guardian ad litem task force and make further recommendations.

(41:53):

Second link is to that report. One of the things consistently throughout all those reports was that there be developmentally appropriate parenting times developed so that at different ages and stages, courts had different options to rely on and that there was not just one option available because the reality, there's a quote that happy families are all the same, but unhappy families are all unhappy for different reasons. And that's what courts are trying to address in these cases. Some people, whether you're an over the road trucker or a cardiac surgeon aren't working nine to five standard plans don't work for them. Not everybody wants 50 50, not everybody's capable of 50 50. So there are at least three different variations at each developmental level that actually happened decades ago. It's one of the best kept secrets at the Supreme Court. And that link is not in here, but I can send that to folks if they want to see it.

(42:55):

We already have developmentally appropriate multilevel parenting plans for folks. So that is there. And what my hope is once this passes is that courts will look at that and they will have a multitude of options to explain. We also know when we teach and train guardian ad litems that they get appointed for all the kids in a family. And what the 2-year-old needs, like I said, may not be what the 6-year-old needs may not be, what the 11-year-old older sibling needs. And that set of plans allows parties, it allows attorneys, it allows courts to look at all of this and make different plans for different kids that overlap and work together. So children can have individual time with parents, each parent to structure things to help build those relationships so the kids aren't just treated as a group and go as a lump from place to place.

(43:53):

So I do think that we have some resources already developed that can help identify and deal with that. The other thing is people have addressed is that there's a fight here really in these issues around language. When that task force was working. We heard from parents, we did surveys, we heard from courts and other professionals, and we heard people say things like, I'll take 40% and give them 60%, but don't call it shared. I'm not sharing anything with that such and such because there's so much animosity there. And the language, the way this is drafted, diffuses so many of those concerns. People can walk into a court man and wife and walk out exes, but no one should walk into a court, mom or dad and walk out anything less than that. And that is what this bill will help families in Ohio do. So I would be happy to answer any questions you have and thank you so much for considering this.

Chair Manning (44:56):

Thank you so much for your testimony. It looks like there's no questions, so you're getting off easy, but we appreciate

Lisa DeGeeter (45:00):

It. Thank you.

Chair Manning (45:01):

Thank you. Members. Please note written proponent testimony from C.