Wri%en Tes*mony Opposing Ohio Senate Bill 174 (SB174)
Submi%ed by: Nicole Amill
To: Ohio Senate Judiciary Commi%ee
Date: October 8, 2025
Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members
of the Senate Judiciary Commi%ee,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit tes*mony in opposi*on to Senate Bill 174.
I come before you not as a policy analyst or poli*cal figure, but as a mother, survivor,
and advocate who has directly experienced the failures of Ohio’s family court system. I
understand the stated inten*on of SB174: to priori*ze child safety and support vic*ms
of abuse. However, I respecZully urge this commi%ee to consider the unintended
consequences of this bill as wri%en, par*cularly its dangerous expansion of judicial
discre*on without mechanisms for oversight or accountability.
1. Expanded Judicial Discre*on Without Guardrails
SB174 allows courts to allocate paren*ng responsibili*es based on the “best interests of
the child.” On its face, this sounds reasonable. In prac*ce, however, “best interest”
determina*ons have become a legal gray area, vulnerable to bias, inconsistent
applica*on, and misuse.
In many Ohio coun*es, judges and magistrates are already misusing their discre*on,
ignoring protec*ve parents’ evidence of abuse, disregarding custody orders, and
collabora*ng with GALs or a%orneys who have financial or poli*cal *es to one another.
SB174 would only widen this discre*on without establishing standards, checks, or
enforcement mechanisms to ensure such power is exercised lawfully and fairly.
2. SB174 Risks Further Weaponizing Domes*c Violence Protec*ons
The bill includes language allowing courts to limit paren*ng *me to protect against
physical, sexual, or emo*onal abuse. This too is well-inten*oned, but in reality, many
survivors already face retalia*on in court for repor*ng abuse. Protec*ve parents,
par*cularly mothers, are oden labeled as uncoopera*ve or accused of "parental
aliena*on" when they a%empt to shield their children.
Under SB174, there is nothing to prevent these same misinterpreta*ons from being
codified into legal decisions. The bill does not mandate the use of trauma-informed
evaluators. It does not define abuse or ensure that expert tes*mony from domes*c
violence professionals will be considered. Instead, it places the burden back on judges,
many of whom are not trained in DV dynamics, to interpret survivor behavior without
mandatory educa*on or review.
applica*on, and misuse.
In many Ohio coun*es, judges and magistrates are already misusing their discre*on,
ignoring protec*ve parents’ evidence of abuse, disregarding custody orders, and
collabora*ng with GALs or a%orneys who have financial or poli*cal *es to one another.
SB174 would only widen this discre*on without establishing standards, checks, or
enforcement mechanisms to ensure such power is exercised lawfully and fairly.
2. SB174 Risks Further Weaponizing Domes*c Violence Protec*ons
The bill includes language allowing courts to limit paren*ng *me to protect against
physical, sexual, or emo*onal abuse. This too is well-inten*oned, but in reality, many
survivors already face retalia*on in court for repor*ng abuse. Protec*ve parents,
par*cularly mothers, are oden labeled as uncoopera*ve or accused of "parental
aliena*on" when they a%empt to shield their children.
Under SB174, there is nothing to prevent these same misinterpreta*ons from being
codified into legal decisions. The bill does not mandate the use of trauma-informed
evaluators. It does not define abuse or ensure that expert tes*mony from domes*c
violence professionals will be considered. Instead, it places the burden back on judges,
many of whom are not trained in DV dynamics, to interpret survivor behavior without
mandatory educa*on or review.
3. Lack of Oversight and Recourse for Vic*ms of Judicial Misconduct
Perhaps most concerning is what SB174 does not do. It does not include provisions for:
• Independent review of custody decisions involving abuse allega*ons
• Standards for recusal when judges or GALs have known conflicts of interest
• Sanc*ons for judicial officers who repeatedly ignore statutory guidelines
• A clear appeals process when a protec*ve parent is wrongly punished
In a state where many protec*ve parents are denied basic due process, and in some
cases held in contempt for following court orders, this silence is unacceptable. We
cannot expand judicial power without also expanding transparency, accountability, and
meaningful access to jus*ce.
4. Real Reform Requires Balance; This Bill Doesn’t Deliver That
If Ohio truly seeks to protect children and survivors of domes*c violence, we need
balanced, enforceable, and trauma-informed reforms, not broader discre*on for courts
that already act without consequence.
I strongly urge you to reconsider SB174 in its current form and instead push for
legisla*on that includes the following:
• Mandatory training in domes*c violence and trauma for all family court
personnel
Perhaps most concerning is what SB174 does not do. It does not include provisions for:
• Independent review of custody decisions involving abuse allega*ons
• Standards for recusal when judges or GALs have known conflicts of interest
• Sanc*ons for judicial officers who repeatedly ignore statutory guidelines
• A clear appeals process when a protec*ve parent is wrongly punished
In a state where many protec*ve parents are denied basic due process, and in some
cases held in contempt for following court orders, this silence is unacceptable. We
cannot expand judicial power without also expanding transparency, accountability, and
meaningful access to jus*ce.
4. Real Reform Requires Balance; This Bill Doesn’t Deliver That
If Ohio truly seeks to protect children and survivors of domes*c violence, we need
balanced, enforceable, and trauma-informed reforms, not broader discre*on for courts
that already act without consequence.
I strongly urge you to reconsider SB174 in its current form and instead push for
legisla*on that includes the following:
• Mandatory training in domes*c violence and trauma for all family court
personnel
• Independent oversight of custody decisions and GAL performance
• Clear criteria for limi*ng paren*ng *me that protect against misuse
• Survivor-centered appeals processes and conflict-of-interest safeguards
Conclusion
SB174 may be presented as protec*ve, but for those of us who have experienced the
family court system firsthand, it reads like an expansion of the very power structures
that have silenced and endangered us.
Children and survivors do not need more discre*on from unchecked authori*es. We
need protec*on, accountability, and a jus*ce system that does no further harm.
Please vote no on SB174 as currently wri%en.
RespecZully,
Nicole Amill
538 Washington Ave.
Lorain, Ohio 44052
Nicoleamill7@gmail.com
(440) 752-0446
• Clear criteria for limi*ng paren*ng *me that protect against misuse
• Survivor-centered appeals processes and conflict-of-interest safeguards
Conclusion
SB174 may be presented as protec*ve, but for those of us who have experienced the
family court system firsthand, it reads like an expansion of the very power structures
that have silenced and endangered us.
Children and survivors do not need more discre*on from unchecked authori*es. We
need protec*on, accountability, and a jus*ce system that does no further harm.
Please vote no on SB174 as currently wri%en.
RespecZully,
Nicole Amill
538 Washington Ave.
Lorain, Ohio 44052
Nicoleamill7@gmail.com
(440) 752-0446