OPPONENT TESTIMONY – SB 174
TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER HAAS
Co-Founder, Stark County Parents United; Vice President, A Kids Right
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
OHIO SENATE, 136TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OCTOBER 5, 2025
Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson and members of the Senate
Judicial Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on SB 174. I regret I
was not able to appear in person to provide this testimony but just learned today of the meeting date. I
will try to make my written testimony comprehensive as I will be not be at the meeting to field
questions.
My name is Alexander Haas, I’ve been supporting victims of parental alienation and advocating
for change in the Family Court system ever since my eyes were opened to it through my own experience
with it in 2010. I have lived in Ohio most of my life only leaving for University and the Marine Corps. I’m
married now with 7 children with my wife and run a small business with a small chain of coffee-shops I
founded in 2003. I have volunteered in my community on city government committees and various
community organizations. While I was the primary caretaker for my son of 4 and daughter of 2, I found
myself in a position where I needed to try to assert my rights to see those children at all. Realizing the
travesty and damages routinely endured by children and parents I set out to improve things out of
respect for that most sacred and fundamental bond between parent and child. I co-founded Stark
County Parents United, which acts as a support group to parents alienated from their children by actions
of the court or the other parent. I am also the Vice President of A Kids Right, a New York based 501c4
advocating to protect a child’s right to access their parents. I’m a capable adult and can advocate for
myself. Ohio’s children cannot advocate for themselves and need to be advocated for. I urge to not pass
SB 174 to protect our children.
My opposition to SB 174 is in four forms. One - the rewrites of the law include violations of the
Ohio and US Constitution; two - a bill with such far-reaching impacts and varied legal topics and
consequences requires the input of more Senate Committees, three - the substantive changes in the bill
regarding family rights endanger the bond between parents and children to create more judicial
discretion, and less simple clear guidelines for judges to ensure all Ohioans are treated equitably, and
four – the legilative changes are in direct contradiction to the principles outlined in the Ohio Supreme
Courts 2005 Family Law Refrom Recommendations.
I. Constitutional Concerns
Substantive and Procedural Due Process
Fundamental parental rights – Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and
management of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). SB 174’s provisions, particularly
Sections 3109.0414–0416, allow a court to declare “no parent … suitable” for custody based on broad
criteria and appoint a relative or transfer the case to juvenile court. The bill uses a preponderance-of-
the-evidence standard, which is weaker than the “clear and convincing” standard required for
termination of parental rights. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). This raises serious due-process
concerns. Legislative modification would likely be needed to increase the evidentiary standard and
require explicit findings.
Judicial discretion and deference – Sections 3109.0412 and 3109.03 give the court “complete
discretion” over parenting plans and state that the child’s best interest is paramount, with no
presumption favoring a fit parent. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). This risks infringing a fit
parent’s decision-making rights, as courts cannot treat children as mere creatures of the State or
disregard parental judgment without justification. SB 174 may need to reinstate a presumption favoring
parental choice or otherwise limit judicial override to comply with constitutional protections.
Ex parte orders and notice – Section 3109.0422 permits temporary parenting orders without an
immediate hearing, with a follow-up hearing within 28 days. Procedural due process ordinarily requires
prompt notice and opportunity to be heard. Courts may find that 28 days is too long an interim
deprivation of custody, suggesting a need for expedited hearings or more stringent notice requirements.
Vague or overbroad standards – Terms like “completely incapable of supporting or caring for the child”
and “detrimental to the child” in Section 3109.0416 are vague. Vague statutes may violate due process if
they fail to provide fair notice or encourage arbitrary enforcement. These provisions would likely need
clearer definitions to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Equal Protection
Gender and marital status classifications – Section 3109.0424 presumes an unmarried mother is the
sole custodian until the court orders otherwise, requiring fathers to initiate proceedings to obtain rights.
Section 3109.0426 bars an unmarried mother convicted of sexual battery from custodianship unless
“special circumstances” exist. These provisions classify based on sex and marital status, potentially
triggering heightened scrutiny under both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions. Any legislative justification
would need to be compelling and narrowly tailored to survive constitutional challenge.
Courts 2005 Family Law Refrom Recommendations.
I. Constitutional Concerns
Substantive and Procedural Due Process
Fundamental parental rights – Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and
management of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). SB 174’s provisions, particularly
Sections 3109.0414–0416, allow a court to declare “no parent … suitable” for custody based on broad
criteria and appoint a relative or transfer the case to juvenile court. The bill uses a preponderance-of-
the-evidence standard, which is weaker than the “clear and convincing” standard required for
termination of parental rights. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). This raises serious due-process
concerns. Legislative modification would likely be needed to increase the evidentiary standard and
require explicit findings.
Judicial discretion and deference – Sections 3109.0412 and 3109.03 give the court “complete
discretion” over parenting plans and state that the child’s best interest is paramount, with no
presumption favoring a fit parent. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). This risks infringing a fit
parent’s decision-making rights, as courts cannot treat children as mere creatures of the State or
disregard parental judgment without justification. SB 174 may need to reinstate a presumption favoring
parental choice or otherwise limit judicial override to comply with constitutional protections.
Ex parte orders and notice – Section 3109.0422 permits temporary parenting orders without an
immediate hearing, with a follow-up hearing within 28 days. Procedural due process ordinarily requires
prompt notice and opportunity to be heard. Courts may find that 28 days is too long an interim
deprivation of custody, suggesting a need for expedited hearings or more stringent notice requirements.
Vague or overbroad standards – Terms like “completely incapable of supporting or caring for the child”
and “detrimental to the child” in Section 3109.0416 are vague. Vague statutes may violate due process if
they fail to provide fair notice or encourage arbitrary enforcement. These provisions would likely need
clearer definitions to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Equal Protection
Gender and marital status classifications – Section 3109.0424 presumes an unmarried mother is the
sole custodian until the court orders otherwise, requiring fathers to initiate proceedings to obtain rights.
Section 3109.0426 bars an unmarried mother convicted of sexual battery from custodianship unless
“special circumstances” exist. These provisions classify based on sex and marital status, potentially
triggering heightened scrutiny under both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions. Any legislative justification
would need to be compelling and narrowly tailored to survive constitutional challenge.
Other classifications – While SB 174 prohibits courts from giving preference based on gender or
financial status, the specific provisions above create non-neutral treatment, which may be argued as
arbitrary or discriminatory.
Access to Courts and Procedural Safeguards
SB 174 generally preserves court access, including prioritizing appeals (Section 3109.0428). Concerns
arise with ex parte orders (Section 3109.0422) and restrictions on attorney communication with children
(Section 3109.0453), which could impede meaningful participation in custody proceedings.
Modifications may be needed to ensure timely hearings and balanced representation while protecting
child welfare.
Family Integrity and Liberty Interests
The bill’s comprehensive restructuring of custody law, including mandatory interviews with children
(Section 3109.0445) and new constraints on legal custodianship, intrudes into the family sphere.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Courts may view these
provisions as limiting parental discretion excessively. To comply with constitutional protections, the bill
should narrowly tailor interventions and preserve deference to fit parents’ choices.
Constitutional Concerns Conclusion
SB 174 raises multiple constitutional concerns:
1. Due process: Weak evidentiary standards for declaring parental unsuitability and broad judicial
discretion over parenting plans.
2. Equal protection: Gender- and marital-status-based presumptions and restrictions for
unmarried mothers.
3. Procedural safeguards: Ex parte orders and restrictions on attorney communications may impair
parents’ rights.
To withstand constitutional scrutiny, SB 174 would need revisions, including higher evidentiary
standards, clearer definitions, presumptions favoring fit parents, and removal or narrowing of
discriminatory classifications.
II. Legislative Rules and Review
Senate Bill 174 amends numerous sections of the Ohio Revised Code across multiple titles—
touching not only domestic relations and custody law, but also education statutes (Chapters 3313 and
3345), juvenile code provisions (Chapter 2151), and sections concerning child support and family
services. Under the Ohio Senate’s own Rules and long-standing practice, the Rules and Reference
Committee is responsible for assigning legislation to standing committees according to subject-matter
jurisdiction, and measures that clearly span more than one area of law are eligible for split or joint
financial status, the specific provisions above create non-neutral treatment, which may be argued as
arbitrary or discriminatory.
Access to Courts and Procedural Safeguards
SB 174 generally preserves court access, including prioritizing appeals (Section 3109.0428). Concerns
arise with ex parte orders (Section 3109.0422) and restrictions on attorney communication with children
(Section 3109.0453), which could impede meaningful participation in custody proceedings.
Modifications may be needed to ensure timely hearings and balanced representation while protecting
child welfare.
Family Integrity and Liberty Interests
The bill’s comprehensive restructuring of custody law, including mandatory interviews with children
(Section 3109.0445) and new constraints on legal custodianship, intrudes into the family sphere.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Courts may view these
provisions as limiting parental discretion excessively. To comply with constitutional protections, the bill
should narrowly tailor interventions and preserve deference to fit parents’ choices.
Constitutional Concerns Conclusion
SB 174 raises multiple constitutional concerns:
1. Due process: Weak evidentiary standards for declaring parental unsuitability and broad judicial
discretion over parenting plans.
2. Equal protection: Gender- and marital-status-based presumptions and restrictions for
unmarried mothers.
3. Procedural safeguards: Ex parte orders and restrictions on attorney communications may impair
parents’ rights.
To withstand constitutional scrutiny, SB 174 would need revisions, including higher evidentiary
standards, clearer definitions, presumptions favoring fit parents, and removal or narrowing of
discriminatory classifications.
II. Legislative Rules and Review
Senate Bill 174 amends numerous sections of the Ohio Revised Code across multiple titles—
touching not only domestic relations and custody law, but also education statutes (Chapters 3313 and
3345), juvenile code provisions (Chapter 2151), and sections concerning child support and family
services. Under the Ohio Senate’s own Rules and long-standing practice, the Rules and Reference
Committee is responsible for assigning legislation to standing committees according to subject-matter
jurisdiction, and measures that clearly span more than one area of law are eligible for split or joint
referral. Because SB 174 substantively alters statutes within the Education and juvenile welfare domains
as well as family law, its exclusive referral to the Judiciary Committee conflicts with the Senate’s
mandate to ensure that legislation receives thorough review by the appropriate subject-matter
committees. Other standing committees have jurisdictional oversight over legislation in this bill and
their valuable input is also needed for a bill altering the states control of a child’s access to their parent. .
For this reason, proper legislative process and rule compliance require that SB 174 also be referred to
the Education Committee and any committee responsible for juvenile or child-welfare statutes before
further action is taken.
III. Substantive Concerns
Ohio SB 174 radically overhauls child-custody law by mandating detailed parenting plans, broadening
“best interest” factors, and dramatically increasing court involvement in private family decisions. In
practice, the bill grants judges complete discretion to approve or reject any agreed plan, requires courts
to interview children (with parents often excluded), and even forbids parents’ lawyers from discussing
custody with their own child. These provisions undermine parents’ legitimate authority and autonomy,
spark needless conflict, and introduce serious risks of harm to family bonds.
Undermining Parental Authority and Caregiving Role
SB 174 supplants parents’ judgment by shifting routine parenting decisions from the home into the
courtroom. Research on parent–child attachment emphasizes that children need consistent, nurturing
caregivers as a “secure base” to develop normally. A loving bond forms the foundation of a child’s sense
of being loved and valued. When judges can arbitrarily alter agreed schedules or parenting duties,
children may see their parent’s guidance as untrustworthy or secondary to the state’s will. Attachment
theory warns that inconsistent caregiving or abrupt changes in parental roles can create insecure
attachment patterns with enduring effects. By replacing the familiar language of “custody” with abstract
“parenting responsibilities,” the bill risks confusing children about who is in charge, eroding the very
parent–child bond it claims to protect.
Increased Family Conflict and Litigation
Extensive studies and policy analyses show that sweeping custody reforms often increase short-term
conflict and court battles. Any major legal overhaul tends to create uncertainty that drives up litigation.
Mandatory shared-parenting rules or detailed planning requirements can spark more disputes, not
fewer. SB 174 requires parents to submit lengthy parenting plans and allows judges to demand changes
or order transfers of custody to relatives if a parent is deemed “unsuitable.” This centralizes conflict in
court: even cooperative parents might argue heatedly over plan details, knowing a judge could wipe out
their agreement. Paradoxically, SB 174’s child-centered rhetoric may invite strategic maneuvering—
parents might be less willing to compromise if courts can intervene on a wide range of issues.
Undoubtedly, poorer families will bear the brunt of the bill’s new procedural demands. Wealthier
parents can afford legal counsel and experts to navigate complex parenting plans, while low-income
families would struggle.
as well as family law, its exclusive referral to the Judiciary Committee conflicts with the Senate’s
mandate to ensure that legislation receives thorough review by the appropriate subject-matter
committees. Other standing committees have jurisdictional oversight over legislation in this bill and
their valuable input is also needed for a bill altering the states control of a child’s access to their parent. .
For this reason, proper legislative process and rule compliance require that SB 174 also be referred to
the Education Committee and any committee responsible for juvenile or child-welfare statutes before
further action is taken.
III. Substantive Concerns
Ohio SB 174 radically overhauls child-custody law by mandating detailed parenting plans, broadening
“best interest” factors, and dramatically increasing court involvement in private family decisions. In
practice, the bill grants judges complete discretion to approve or reject any agreed plan, requires courts
to interview children (with parents often excluded), and even forbids parents’ lawyers from discussing
custody with their own child. These provisions undermine parents’ legitimate authority and autonomy,
spark needless conflict, and introduce serious risks of harm to family bonds.
Undermining Parental Authority and Caregiving Role
SB 174 supplants parents’ judgment by shifting routine parenting decisions from the home into the
courtroom. Research on parent–child attachment emphasizes that children need consistent, nurturing
caregivers as a “secure base” to develop normally. A loving bond forms the foundation of a child’s sense
of being loved and valued. When judges can arbitrarily alter agreed schedules or parenting duties,
children may see their parent’s guidance as untrustworthy or secondary to the state’s will. Attachment
theory warns that inconsistent caregiving or abrupt changes in parental roles can create insecure
attachment patterns with enduring effects. By replacing the familiar language of “custody” with abstract
“parenting responsibilities,” the bill risks confusing children about who is in charge, eroding the very
parent–child bond it claims to protect.
Increased Family Conflict and Litigation
Extensive studies and policy analyses show that sweeping custody reforms often increase short-term
conflict and court battles. Any major legal overhaul tends to create uncertainty that drives up litigation.
Mandatory shared-parenting rules or detailed planning requirements can spark more disputes, not
fewer. SB 174 requires parents to submit lengthy parenting plans and allows judges to demand changes
or order transfers of custody to relatives if a parent is deemed “unsuitable.” This centralizes conflict in
court: even cooperative parents might argue heatedly over plan details, knowing a judge could wipe out
their agreement. Paradoxically, SB 174’s child-centered rhetoric may invite strategic maneuvering—
parents might be less willing to compromise if courts can intervene on a wide range of issues.
Undoubtedly, poorer families will bear the brunt of the bill’s new procedural demands. Wealthier
parents can afford legal counsel and experts to navigate complex parenting plans, while low-income
families would struggle.
Judicial Micromanagement of Family Life
SB 174 effectively invites judges to micromanage routine parenting arrangements. Under current Ohio
law, courts generally decide only who a child lives with and basic parenting time. By contrast, SB 174
replaces these broad categories with dozens of specific “parenting responsibilities” (education, health
care, daily schedule, etc.) that courts must allocate. Judges then have complete discretion over
approving any plan and can even require parents to submit written questions for a child interview.
Domestic courts in other jurisdictions have lamented this kind of micromanagement, noting that trivial
disputes about daily arrangements waste resources and create unnecessary tension. SB 174 risks turning
every parenting detail into a legal battle, stripping parents of freedom to resolve minor issues
themselves, undermining confidence and autonomy in the family unit.
Psychological Risks to Children
Psychologists agree that confusing or conflict-ridden custody processes can harm children. A secure,
stable parent–child relationship is the bedrock of a child’s emotional well-being. When legal battles
disrupt that security, children can experience anxiety, confusion, and divided loyalties. Repeated
disruptions or adversarial custody disputes often leave lasting scars. If a child is shuffled into court-
ordered meetings with judges or social workers, they may worry about disappointing one parent or fear
retribution. Restrictions on children speaking freely with their parents’ attorneys, as required under
SB 174, can make children feel powerless or unheard in decisions that profoundly affect them. By
treating children as passive objects of a legal process rather than active family members, SB 174 risks
leaving them insecure and uncertain about who will protect them.
Unethical Power Dynamics and Strategic Abuse
SB 174’s broad authority creates opportunities for exploitation. By expanding judges’ best-interest
factors and discretionary powers, the bill arms court appointees with greater influence over families
without clear accountability. A single unproven claim of unfitness could prompt a judge to place a child
with relatives or severely restrict a parent’s rights. This opens the door to “punishment by process”: a
parent might make or threaten allegations knowing the court can overhaul custody on flimsy grounds.
Court-ordered child interviews and attorneys for children, while well-intentioned, could also backfire:
advocates may impose adult agendas on a child’s situation. Ultimately, the bill tilts the balance of power
away from parents and toward state actors, risking overreach.
Comparative Lessons
Other jurisdictions have faced similar issues. Analyses of parental-responsibility models note that
mandatory parenting plans and terminology changes often create high initial litigation and raise
unfulfilled expectations. They stress that no single model of post-separation parenting fits all children, so
rigid plans may harm some families. In practice, overly formulaic laws have sometimes led to absurd
court orders and frustrated families. By contrast, research suggests the healthiest outcomes come from
cooperative, flexible parenting arrangements tailored by the parents themselves—not from courts
dictating every detail.
SB 174 effectively invites judges to micromanage routine parenting arrangements. Under current Ohio
law, courts generally decide only who a child lives with and basic parenting time. By contrast, SB 174
replaces these broad categories with dozens of specific “parenting responsibilities” (education, health
care, daily schedule, etc.) that courts must allocate. Judges then have complete discretion over
approving any plan and can even require parents to submit written questions for a child interview.
Domestic courts in other jurisdictions have lamented this kind of micromanagement, noting that trivial
disputes about daily arrangements waste resources and create unnecessary tension. SB 174 risks turning
every parenting detail into a legal battle, stripping parents of freedom to resolve minor issues
themselves, undermining confidence and autonomy in the family unit.
Psychological Risks to Children
Psychologists agree that confusing or conflict-ridden custody processes can harm children. A secure,
stable parent–child relationship is the bedrock of a child’s emotional well-being. When legal battles
disrupt that security, children can experience anxiety, confusion, and divided loyalties. Repeated
disruptions or adversarial custody disputes often leave lasting scars. If a child is shuffled into court-
ordered meetings with judges or social workers, they may worry about disappointing one parent or fear
retribution. Restrictions on children speaking freely with their parents’ attorneys, as required under
SB 174, can make children feel powerless or unheard in decisions that profoundly affect them. By
treating children as passive objects of a legal process rather than active family members, SB 174 risks
leaving them insecure and uncertain about who will protect them.
Unethical Power Dynamics and Strategic Abuse
SB 174’s broad authority creates opportunities for exploitation. By expanding judges’ best-interest
factors and discretionary powers, the bill arms court appointees with greater influence over families
without clear accountability. A single unproven claim of unfitness could prompt a judge to place a child
with relatives or severely restrict a parent’s rights. This opens the door to “punishment by process”: a
parent might make or threaten allegations knowing the court can overhaul custody on flimsy grounds.
Court-ordered child interviews and attorneys for children, while well-intentioned, could also backfire:
advocates may impose adult agendas on a child’s situation. Ultimately, the bill tilts the balance of power
away from parents and toward state actors, risking overreach.
Comparative Lessons
Other jurisdictions have faced similar issues. Analyses of parental-responsibility models note that
mandatory parenting plans and terminology changes often create high initial litigation and raise
unfulfilled expectations. They stress that no single model of post-separation parenting fits all children, so
rigid plans may harm some families. In practice, overly formulaic laws have sometimes led to absurd
court orders and frustrated families. By contrast, research suggests the healthiest outcomes come from
cooperative, flexible parenting arrangements tailored by the parents themselves—not from courts
dictating every detail.
Substantive Concerns Conclusion
SB 174 advances an intrusive, one-size framework that could undercut trust and stability in fit families. It
places private parenting disputes squarely in the hands of judges and court-appointed actors, inviting
conflict and confusion. By sidelining parents’ judgment in favor of elaborate court control, SB 174 risks
damaging the very parent–child bonds it seeks to preserve. Ethical concerns and social science caution
that this approach will not protect children, but rather strain relationships, elevate stress, and introduce
unforeseen harms. SB 174 endangers instead of empowers Ohio’s families.
IV. Principle Violations of the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2005 Family Law Reform Recommendations
Ohio Senate Bill 174 (SB 174) introduces significant changes to child custody laws, including expanded
judicial discretion, mandatory parenting plans, and court-ordered child interviews. These provisions
raise ethical concerns regarding the potential erosion of the parent–child bond, particularly when both
parents are fit and involved. SB 174's approach conflicts with several key principles outlined in the
report.
1. Minimization of Court Intervention
The 2005 report emphasizes the importance of minimizing court intervention in family matters,
advocating for approaches that reduce adversarial proceedings and promote family autonomy. SB 174's
provisions, such as mandatory parenting plans and court-ordered child interviews, increases judicial
involvement in routine family decisions, potentially escalating conflict rather than resolving it.
2. Support for Parental Responsibility and Cooperation
The report highlights the need to support and encourage parental responsibility and cooperation,
suggesting that laws should facilitate parents working together in the best interests of their children.
SB 174's emphasis on detailed judicial oversight and the potential for court-mandated changes to
parenting arrangements could undermine parental authority and cooperation, fostering an environment
of dependency on the court system.
3. Protection of Children from Harmful Practices
Ensuring that children are protected from harmful practices is a cornerstone of the 2005
recommendations. SB 174’s approach could inadvertently harm children by introducing instability and
confusion into their lives through increased court involvement and potential disruptions to established
parenting arrangements.
4. Promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution
The report advocates for the promotion of alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, to
resolve family disputes without resorting to litigation. SB 174's provisions would limit the use of such
methods by imposing rigid structures and timelines, reducing opportunities for parents to resolve
conflicts amicably.
SB 174 advances an intrusive, one-size framework that could undercut trust and stability in fit families. It
places private parenting disputes squarely in the hands of judges and court-appointed actors, inviting
conflict and confusion. By sidelining parents’ judgment in favor of elaborate court control, SB 174 risks
damaging the very parent–child bonds it seeks to preserve. Ethical concerns and social science caution
that this approach will not protect children, but rather strain relationships, elevate stress, and introduce
unforeseen harms. SB 174 endangers instead of empowers Ohio’s families.
IV. Principle Violations of the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2005 Family Law Reform Recommendations
Ohio Senate Bill 174 (SB 174) introduces significant changes to child custody laws, including expanded
judicial discretion, mandatory parenting plans, and court-ordered child interviews. These provisions
raise ethical concerns regarding the potential erosion of the parent–child bond, particularly when both
parents are fit and involved. SB 174's approach conflicts with several key principles outlined in the
report.
1. Minimization of Court Intervention
The 2005 report emphasizes the importance of minimizing court intervention in family matters,
advocating for approaches that reduce adversarial proceedings and promote family autonomy. SB 174's
provisions, such as mandatory parenting plans and court-ordered child interviews, increases judicial
involvement in routine family decisions, potentially escalating conflict rather than resolving it.
2. Support for Parental Responsibility and Cooperation
The report highlights the need to support and encourage parental responsibility and cooperation,
suggesting that laws should facilitate parents working together in the best interests of their children.
SB 174's emphasis on detailed judicial oversight and the potential for court-mandated changes to
parenting arrangements could undermine parental authority and cooperation, fostering an environment
of dependency on the court system.
3. Protection of Children from Harmful Practices
Ensuring that children are protected from harmful practices is a cornerstone of the 2005
recommendations. SB 174’s approach could inadvertently harm children by introducing instability and
confusion into their lives through increased court involvement and potential disruptions to established
parenting arrangements.
4. Promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution
The report advocates for the promotion of alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, to
resolve family disputes without resorting to litigation. SB 174's provisions would limit the use of such
methods by imposing rigid structures and timelines, reducing opportunities for parents to resolve
conflicts amicably.
V. Conclusion
In light of the Ohio Supreme Court's 2005 recommendations, SB 174's approach to family law reform
does not align with the principles of minimizing court intervention, supporting parental cooperation,
protecting children from harm, and promoting alternative dispute resolution. While the bill aims to
address important issues in family law, its provisions would be counter-productive to a the stability and
health of Ohio families while at the same time violating multiple constitutional and procedural
provisions.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for allowing me to provide testimony on
SB 174 and I urge you to uphold the Constitution and safeguard the bonds between Ohio’s parent’s and
children by voting no to SB 174.
Alexander J. Haas
330.353.2705
me@alexanderhaas.org
In light of the Ohio Supreme Court's 2005 recommendations, SB 174's approach to family law reform
does not align with the principles of minimizing court intervention, supporting parental cooperation,
protecting children from harm, and promoting alternative dispute resolution. While the bill aims to
address important issues in family law, its provisions would be counter-productive to a the stability and
health of Ohio families while at the same time violating multiple constitutional and procedural
provisions.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for allowing me to provide testimony on
SB 174 and I urge you to uphold the Constitution and safeguard the bonds between Ohio’s parent’s and
children by voting no to SB 174.
Alexander J. Haas
330.353.2705
me@alexanderhaas.org