OPPONENT TESTIMONY - SB174
TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH MCNEESE
Chair, Ohio National Parents Organization
614-266-5088, ElizabethMcNeese@sharedparenting.org
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
OHIO SENATE, 136TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OCTOBER 8, 2025
Chair Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson and members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on SB174.
My name is Elizabeth McNeese, the Ohio Chair of National Parents Organization. I’m a very proud
mother and step-mother of six children. And for the record, I did not come here with a personal vendetta
or sad story. My kids grew up with the benefit of shared parenting and are grown now… but I am a
stubborn advocate and co-author for the equal parenting bills introduced in the past two General
Assemblies.
It’s been very encouraging to see lawmakers attempt to tackle family court reform, but I sincerely urge
you to keep asking the hard questions. Demand the checks and balances of the Judiciary that is
bestowed upon you in the Ohio Senate.
First, it’s important to note at the outset that SB174 was written and lobbied for by sitting judges with
the Ohio Judicial Conference. This bill was not written by either task force in 2001 or 2005. In fact, this
bill sidesteps major recommendations that came out of those reports and, instead, emphasizes the
court’s discretion above all else. This bill clearly highlights the lack of deference courts currently have
towards separated parents and their belief that they truly know what’s best for all our children.
Proponents would like you to believe that this 400 page bill was the result of decades of labor from
various entities with the entire focus being “child-first.” But as testified to last G.A. by Paul Pfeifer with
the Ohio Judicial Conference, “Since 2020 the Domestic Relations Judges have been working to get
before you, [this] legislation..” The truth is this bill was created as a counter bill to our citizen-led reform.
When equal parenting was introduced with the overwhelming support of 87%1 of Ohioans, and 61
Representatives signed on to co-sponsor it2, the judges retaliated and this bill is the result. In short, this
bill was written by sitting judges to protect the lucrative divorce industry, and it has nothing to do with
the best interests of Ohio’s children.
I would also like to note on record that while the judges and Bar Association demanded to participate in
all of our interested parties meetings, our requests for interested parties meetings have been completely
ignored this G.A.
2 Ohio HB 508, 135th General Assembly
1 https://www.sharedparenting.org/shared-parenting-polling
1
What’s in SB174 exactly?
SB174 is not in any way shape or form a bill that would move courts to produce more equitable
outcomes for fit parents – despite what sidebar conversations may promise. In fact, proponent
testimony was carefully crafted to omit the serious problems with this piece of legislation, particularly
the way SB174 deletes “parental rights,” repealing the entire concept of “shared parenting” and granting
courts “complete discretion” to do whatever they feel is best by applying “any other relevant factor” the
court would like to consider.
In point, SB174 consistently emphasizes the court’s authority as paramount over the authority of fit and
loving parents. By deleting the term “parental rights” at every opportunity–more than a hundred and
fifty times!– it sends a clear message to Ohioans that courts don’t recognize the fundamental rights
parents have to the care and custody of their children. Instead, what the court sees are mere
“responsibilities” that must be doled out at their sole discretion.
But parents do have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children. The U.S. Supreme
Court has reinforced that time and again.3 And fundamental rights require appropriate due process and
strict scrutiny before they are infringed upon.4
Care, control, access, authority, association and decision-making– all fall under the umbrella of parental
rights. But this bill would rather rebrand these rights as mere “responsibilities.” Ohio families deserve
better than that.
These rights are not at the discretion of the courts absent findings of unfitness or a compelling state
interest. A mere change in relationship status between parents does not meet the threshold of
compelling state interest. Furthermore, denying or restricting parenting time or decision-making without
strict scrutiny and due process is an infringement upon those rights.5 Yet this bill enshrines judicial
discretion under a preponderance of the evidence as the gold standard.
Ohio judges are attempting to rewrite law to usurp parental rights altogether and appoint themselves as
the sole authority in deciding what is best for Ohio’s children–even when both parents are fit and even
when parents are in agreement with one another. This is tyranny.
While it’s true that Courts currently enjoy broad discretion, they wish to double down on this authority
and expand the law to grant themselves “complete discretion.”6 Not only is this a vast overreach and
daringly unconstitutional, it provides an insurmountable hurdle to appeal.
6 SB174 as introduced, line 4851
5 See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574 (1987)
4The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against
government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720,
including parents' fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e. g., Stanley
v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp.63-66.,Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000), Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 125
(1943).
3 See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 406 U. S. 231-233 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S.
390, 262 U. S. 399-401 (1923).Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
2
SB174 is not in any way shape or form a bill that would move courts to produce more equitable
outcomes for fit parents – despite what sidebar conversations may promise. In fact, proponent
testimony was carefully crafted to omit the serious problems with this piece of legislation, particularly
the way SB174 deletes “parental rights,” repealing the entire concept of “shared parenting” and granting
courts “complete discretion” to do whatever they feel is best by applying “any other relevant factor” the
court would like to consider.
In point, SB174 consistently emphasizes the court’s authority as paramount over the authority of fit and
loving parents. By deleting the term “parental rights” at every opportunity–more than a hundred and
fifty times!– it sends a clear message to Ohioans that courts don’t recognize the fundamental rights
parents have to the care and custody of their children. Instead, what the court sees are mere
“responsibilities” that must be doled out at their sole discretion.
But parents do have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children. The U.S. Supreme
Court has reinforced that time and again.3 And fundamental rights require appropriate due process and
strict scrutiny before they are infringed upon.4
Care, control, access, authority, association and decision-making– all fall under the umbrella of parental
rights. But this bill would rather rebrand these rights as mere “responsibilities.” Ohio families deserve
better than that.
These rights are not at the discretion of the courts absent findings of unfitness or a compelling state
interest. A mere change in relationship status between parents does not meet the threshold of
compelling state interest. Furthermore, denying or restricting parenting time or decision-making without
strict scrutiny and due process is an infringement upon those rights.5 Yet this bill enshrines judicial
discretion under a preponderance of the evidence as the gold standard.
Ohio judges are attempting to rewrite law to usurp parental rights altogether and appoint themselves as
the sole authority in deciding what is best for Ohio’s children–even when both parents are fit and even
when parents are in agreement with one another. This is tyranny.
While it’s true that Courts currently enjoy broad discretion, they wish to double down on this authority
and expand the law to grant themselves “complete discretion.”6 Not only is this a vast overreach and
daringly unconstitutional, it provides an insurmountable hurdle to appeal.
6 SB174 as introduced, line 4851
5 See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574 (1987)
4The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against
government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720,
including parents' fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e. g., Stanley
v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp.63-66.,Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000), Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 125
(1943).
3 See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 406 U. S. 231-233 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S.
390, 262 U. S. 399-401 (1923).Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
2
It is not in the best interest of children to erase parental rights in favor of granting courts final, nearly
un-appealable, authority over children, especially when the child has fit and loving parents and the state
has no compelling interest in doing so. Yet this is the entire essence of SB174.
Parental rights matter and I don’t see how those of you who voted in favor of the recent “Parents Bill of
Rights” could possibly support this piece of legislation.
“Best Interest of the Child”
Many of the challenges in our family courts stem from judicial bias that is rampant due to the broad
discretion they have and the very weak statutes to guide them. This bias was acknowledged in both Task
Forces, and even former Representative Diane Grendell, who penned our “best interest of the child”
statutes, admitted in public hearings that there is still a huge problem with bias in our courtrooms and to
which Judge James Brown of Franklin County stated, “This bias you speak of exists … and is the nature of
the beast when you have a courtroom and it’s run by individuals.”
Judicial bias is real and no honest person could deny it. It also drives up litigation costs and pits parents
against each other in desperation to find favor in the jurists’ eyes. And yet, this massive bill that
supposedly transforms family courts for the better, completely ignores this glaring issue of bias. By
retaining the undefined and subjective nature of “the best interest of the child,” SB174 allows judicial
biases to continue and flourish.
There is no statutory guidance in this bill to guide courts as to what is in the best interest of children nor
how to weigh the factors. The “best interest of the child” as written is not a measurable standard and
still does not provide any guidance to courts on what to do with the facts presented in a case. Therefore,
courts must apply their own ideas and opinions on what is best for children over the ideas and opinions
of the child’s fit and loving parents. Merely adding to these subjective factors without guardrails is a
recipe for disaster.
Essentially, under current law, “the best interest of the child” requires courts to apply their own
judgement over the judgement of fit and law abiding parents, and SB174 not only maintains it, it bolsters
it with “complete discretion.”
“Developmentally Appropriate”
Another problem proponents seem to be proud of is requiring courts to craft a “developmentally
appropriate plan” for children. I have a unique perspective on this one, because I have child with
significant disabilities. In fact, he’s one of 12 patients in the world that we know of and all twelve are
different from each other. His pediatrician has zero other patients like him. His specialists have never
had another patient like him. Only his father and I know him, and yet, if we went to court, this bill would
give the courts all the power to decide what is “developmentally appropriate” for him. You may say “well
that’s what GALs and Evaluators are for”... but to that I say, “if even his own lifelong physicians don’t
3
un-appealable, authority over children, especially when the child has fit and loving parents and the state
has no compelling interest in doing so. Yet this is the entire essence of SB174.
Parental rights matter and I don’t see how those of you who voted in favor of the recent “Parents Bill of
Rights” could possibly support this piece of legislation.
“Best Interest of the Child”
Many of the challenges in our family courts stem from judicial bias that is rampant due to the broad
discretion they have and the very weak statutes to guide them. This bias was acknowledged in both Task
Forces, and even former Representative Diane Grendell, who penned our “best interest of the child”
statutes, admitted in public hearings that there is still a huge problem with bias in our courtrooms and to
which Judge James Brown of Franklin County stated, “This bias you speak of exists … and is the nature of
the beast when you have a courtroom and it’s run by individuals.”
Judicial bias is real and no honest person could deny it. It also drives up litigation costs and pits parents
against each other in desperation to find favor in the jurists’ eyes. And yet, this massive bill that
supposedly transforms family courts for the better, completely ignores this glaring issue of bias. By
retaining the undefined and subjective nature of “the best interest of the child,” SB174 allows judicial
biases to continue and flourish.
There is no statutory guidance in this bill to guide courts as to what is in the best interest of children nor
how to weigh the factors. The “best interest of the child” as written is not a measurable standard and
still does not provide any guidance to courts on what to do with the facts presented in a case. Therefore,
courts must apply their own ideas and opinions on what is best for children over the ideas and opinions
of the child’s fit and loving parents. Merely adding to these subjective factors without guardrails is a
recipe for disaster.
Essentially, under current law, “the best interest of the child” requires courts to apply their own
judgement over the judgement of fit and law abiding parents, and SB174 not only maintains it, it bolsters
it with “complete discretion.”
“Developmentally Appropriate”
Another problem proponents seem to be proud of is requiring courts to craft a “developmentally
appropriate plan” for children. I have a unique perspective on this one, because I have child with
significant disabilities. In fact, he’s one of 12 patients in the world that we know of and all twelve are
different from each other. His pediatrician has zero other patients like him. His specialists have never
had another patient like him. Only his father and I know him, and yet, if we went to court, this bill would
give the courts all the power to decide what is “developmentally appropriate” for him. You may say “well
that’s what GALs and Evaluators are for”... but to that I say, “if even his own lifelong physicians don’t
3
understand him, why would a lawyer or evaluator know better than they–better than his own parents?
Even if, as his caretakers we agree? And if so, why must we pay thousands of dollars to get those
inexperienced opinions?” I hope you see how absurd these proposed changes are.
SB174 is Rhetoric not Substance
I think proponents and opponents all agree that Ohio’s current custody laws are completely ineffective at
encouraging collaboration and decreasing conflict and the costs of litigation. But SB174 is the opposite of
meaningful reform and will increase litigation, costs and family conflict.
Are we really expected to believe that parents will be much happier if they’re called the “designated”
parent instead of the “residential” parent? Or that rebranding “parental rights” as mere
“responsibilities” is going to do anything except undermine those fundamental rights that should be
protected?
Courts can’t even agree with each other on what is in the best interest of children. The varying local
parenting time rules reflect that fact. Therefore, creating an unenforceable policy statement about
maximizing time isn’t going to do anything when the caveat is always, “IF” the court feels it’s best.
Policy statements are meaningless when the jurist is the sole decider of “if” and “when” to apply them.
Current laws require courts to create a local rule that is in the best interest of children, and yet somehow
we have 88 drastically different rules all presumed to be in the best interest of children.
Proponents keep using words like “child-centered” but there is nothing child-centered in this bill. This bill
places the focus squarely on each jurist’s authority and children will be the collateral damage.
With SB174, courts will retain and expand their power to decide what is best for our children, even if
parents are in agreement and even when no allegations have been made against either parent. This is
what judicial tyranny looks like and I hope you can recognize it.
The only steps SB174 takes is completely backwards, so please do the right thing; table this bill and send
the judges back to the Judicial branch where they belong.
Elizabeth McNeese
4
Even if, as his caretakers we agree? And if so, why must we pay thousands of dollars to get those
inexperienced opinions?” I hope you see how absurd these proposed changes are.
SB174 is Rhetoric not Substance
I think proponents and opponents all agree that Ohio’s current custody laws are completely ineffective at
encouraging collaboration and decreasing conflict and the costs of litigation. But SB174 is the opposite of
meaningful reform and will increase litigation, costs and family conflict.
Are we really expected to believe that parents will be much happier if they’re called the “designated”
parent instead of the “residential” parent? Or that rebranding “parental rights” as mere
“responsibilities” is going to do anything except undermine those fundamental rights that should be
protected?
Courts can’t even agree with each other on what is in the best interest of children. The varying local
parenting time rules reflect that fact. Therefore, creating an unenforceable policy statement about
maximizing time isn’t going to do anything when the caveat is always, “IF” the court feels it’s best.
Policy statements are meaningless when the jurist is the sole decider of “if” and “when” to apply them.
Current laws require courts to create a local rule that is in the best interest of children, and yet somehow
we have 88 drastically different rules all presumed to be in the best interest of children.
Proponents keep using words like “child-centered” but there is nothing child-centered in this bill. This bill
places the focus squarely on each jurist’s authority and children will be the collateral damage.
With SB174, courts will retain and expand their power to decide what is best for our children, even if
parents are in agreement and even when no allegations have been made against either parent. This is
what judicial tyranny looks like and I hope you can recognize it.
The only steps SB174 takes is completely backwards, so please do the right thing; table this bill and send
the judges back to the Judicial branch where they belong.
Elizabeth McNeese
4