OPPONENT TESTIMONY – SB 174
TESTIMONY OF David Roy Ayers
Parent
PHONE: (419) 266-3240, EMAIL: Davidroyengineer@gmail.com
JUDICARY COMMITTEE
OHIO SENATE, 136TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
October 8th , 2025
Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee:
I am David Ayers from Bowling Green, Ohio, and I am here under the most Nobel title someone can
receive and that is the title of parent. This title imposes great responsibility on the one that carries it.
This title also gains rights, liberties, and protections from the hands of the State. Protection of these
rights and liberties is something significantly lacking in our current laws and the reason why many
parents are here today
Thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on Senate Bill 174. While the bill purports
to modernize Ohio’s family law statutes, its provisions significantly infringe on parental rights, expand
judicial discretion without sufficient oversight, and introduce systemic inconsistencies that are cause for
serious concern.
1. Violation of Fundamental Parental Rights
SB 174 redefines "parental rights" as "parental responsibilities" and grants courts sweeping discretion to
override decisions made by fit parents. This shift ignores longstanding constitutional precedent that
recognizes the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children without
unwarranted government interference. In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court
reaffirmed that “[t]he liberty interest at issue... is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests
recognized by this Court.” SB 174 threatens this liberty by authorizing courts to impose their judgment
over that of fit parents—even in intact families
2. Unconstrained Judicial Discretion
The bill removes clear starting presumptions and fails to establish meaningful standards for how courts
should apply expanded “best interest of the child” factors. Courts would be permitted to deny equal
parenting time—even when both parents request it—based purely on discretionary judgment, requiring
only a “preponderance of evidence” standard. This opens the door to subjective decisions based on
personal biases, rather than evidence-based findings of unfitness or harm.
3. Discriminatory and Ambiguous Language
SB 174 introduces vague and discriminatory terms such as “unsuitable” parents without defining
objective criteria. The bill allows a parent’s parenting time to be restricted if the other party merely
expresses “fear” of harm, again under a low evidentiary threshold. This incentivizes unfounded
allegations and undermines the rights of noncustodial parents, particularly never-married fathers who,
under this bill, would be barred from filing for custody at all.
4. Negative Fiscal and Legal Consequences
According to the Legislative Service Commission, SB 174 will increase administrative burdens and costs
on Ohio’s courts and child support agencies. These include higher demands for guardians ad litem,
expert witnesses, additional hearings, and increased case reviews—many of which will be at the
expense of parents or taxpayers
5. Conflicts with Federal and State Law
SB 174 appears to conflict with federal statutes such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA), disrupts tax and residency classifications due to the replacement of “residential parent” with
“designated parent,” and contradicts established protections for military parents during deployment.
6. Undermining Shared Parenting and Equal Protection
This bill effectively repeals the concept of shared parenting in Ohio law. By allowing courts to deny equal
parenting time without cause, SB 174 violates equal protection principles and diminishes the child’s
right to meaningful involvement with both parents. Social science consistently shows that children
thrive with equal access to both parents absent abuse or neglect.
Conclusion
While the intent to improve Ohio’s family law system is appreciated, SB 174 is deeply flawed in its
approach. It sacrifices parental autonomy, promotes legal inconsistency, and imposes costly mandates
on families and the court system. This bill does not modernize family law—it regresses it.
I urge this committee to reject SB 174 or to significantly revise it to align with constitutional principles,
evidence-based practices, and the rights of Ohio families.
Thank you.
The bill removes clear starting presumptions and fails to establish meaningful standards for how courts
should apply expanded “best interest of the child” factors. Courts would be permitted to deny equal
parenting time—even when both parents request it—based purely on discretionary judgment, requiring
only a “preponderance of evidence” standard. This opens the door to subjective decisions based on
personal biases, rather than evidence-based findings of unfitness or harm.
3. Discriminatory and Ambiguous Language
SB 174 introduces vague and discriminatory terms such as “unsuitable” parents without defining
objective criteria. The bill allows a parent’s parenting time to be restricted if the other party merely
expresses “fear” of harm, again under a low evidentiary threshold. This incentivizes unfounded
allegations and undermines the rights of noncustodial parents, particularly never-married fathers who,
under this bill, would be barred from filing for custody at all.
4. Negative Fiscal and Legal Consequences
According to the Legislative Service Commission, SB 174 will increase administrative burdens and costs
on Ohio’s courts and child support agencies. These include higher demands for guardians ad litem,
expert witnesses, additional hearings, and increased case reviews—many of which will be at the
expense of parents or taxpayers
5. Conflicts with Federal and State Law
SB 174 appears to conflict with federal statutes such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA), disrupts tax and residency classifications due to the replacement of “residential parent” with
“designated parent,” and contradicts established protections for military parents during deployment.
6. Undermining Shared Parenting and Equal Protection
This bill effectively repeals the concept of shared parenting in Ohio law. By allowing courts to deny equal
parenting time without cause, SB 174 violates equal protection principles and diminishes the child’s
right to meaningful involvement with both parents. Social science consistently shows that children
thrive with equal access to both parents absent abuse or neglect.
Conclusion
While the intent to improve Ohio’s family law system is appreciated, SB 174 is deeply flawed in its
approach. It sacrifices parental autonomy, promotes legal inconsistency, and imposes costly mandates
on families and the court system. This bill does not modernize family law—it regresses it.
I urge this committee to reject SB 174 or to significantly revise it to align with constitutional principles,
evidence-based practices, and the rights of Ohio families.
Thank you.