To: Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee
From: Bob Butkowski
Date: 10/8/2025
Re: Testimony Opposing Ohio SB 174
Introduction
Chair Manning, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. I oppose SB 174 because its real-world
consequences (beyond its words) risk harm to children, parents, and the fairness of the family
law system. Below I outline how this bill, as drafted, is likely to play out in practice.
Projected / Actual Effects of SB 174
1. Reduced Clarity & Increased Litigation
o With the elimination of traditional terms like “shared custody,” “sole custody,”
“residential parent,” etc., and replacing them with “parenting responsibilities” and
“designated parent,” many parents and even judges may struggle to understand
who is responsible for what.
o This ambiguity may lead to more litigation, appeals, or disputes over
interpretation of responsibilities, rather than solving conflicts.
o Because overlapping responsibilities are possible (e.g., “welfare,” “health,”
“education”), confusion may require more court involvement to clarify.
2. Codifies the Silver Bullet
o Courts to consider all allegations of abuse or DV and may restrict or deny
parenting time if one parent expresses “fear” (without findings and under
preponderance of the evidence)
3. Greater Judicial Discretion Without Stronger Safety Guarantees
o The bill gives courts broad power to restrict or allocate parenting responsibilities
and to decide on parenting plans even if neither parent submits a plan, or the
submitted ones are not in the child’s best interest.
o Such discretion can lead to inconsistency between courts. Two similar families in
different counties or before different judges could see vastly different outcomes;
this will undermine predictability and fairness.
o Also, in emotionally charged or high conflict cases, discretion without robust
procedural safeguards may favor parents who have more resources (lawyers,
evidence) or can articulate arguments better.
4. Potential Harm to Survivors of Domestic Violence or Abuse
o Although SB 174 includes some provisions for restricting access or
responsibilities in cases of abuse, the requirement of proving (by a preponderance
of evidence) that such restrictions are “reasonably calculated” to protect imposes
burdens.
o Survivors may find it difficult to meet those evidentiary burdens, especially when
abuse is emotional, controlling, or has no third‐party documentation.
o The push toward equal time presumption increases risk that abusive parents may
get parenting time or decision-making authority even when risk exists, unless the
court finds otherwise—and that finding may require extensive evidence, hearings,
and delay.
5. Increased Burden on Courts / Delays
o More detailed parenting plans, mandated hearings, required written findings,
expanded “best interest” factors (including safety, delays, actions of parents) will
place heavier caseloads on courts.
o As hearings become more complex (documenting safety issues, analyzing
evidence of neglect or abuse, making relocation decisions), time to resolution may
increase. This prolongs uncertainty for children and parents.
o Costs to parties (legal fees, expert witnesses) may rise, making access to justice
harder for low-income families.
6. Unequal Effects Depending on Resource Disparities
o Parents with greater financial means, better legal representation, or prior
familiarity with family court will be better positioned to benefit from SB 174’s
provisions (e.g. in preparing detailed plans, proving why equal time is
inappropriate, asking for limitations).
o Parents without resources or with less capacity (time, money, ability to gather
evidence) may be disadvantaged, even if their concerns are legitimate.
7. Destabilization of Existing Parenting Orders
o SB 174 allows modification of existing orders under the new framework. That
means stable arrangements that have worked for years might get reopened or
challenged. Children’s lives could be disrupted by suddenly changing parenting
responsibilities.
o The transitional period could see a flood of motion filings, family law conflict,
and inconsistent rulings as courts interpret and apply the new law.
8. Risk of Overreach into Private Family Decisions
o By requiring detailed parenting plans that may include minutiae (communication
schedules, how often parents must be notified, etc.), the legislation may push
courts to micromanage family life in ways that are not helpful, burdensome, or
even harmful.
o Some everyday parental decisions may become points of legal contest, increasing
conflict rather than reducing it.
Thank you
abuse is emotional, controlling, or has no third‐party documentation.
o The push toward equal time presumption increases risk that abusive parents may
get parenting time or decision-making authority even when risk exists, unless the
court finds otherwise—and that finding may require extensive evidence, hearings,
and delay.
5. Increased Burden on Courts / Delays
o More detailed parenting plans, mandated hearings, required written findings,
expanded “best interest” factors (including safety, delays, actions of parents) will
place heavier caseloads on courts.
o As hearings become more complex (documenting safety issues, analyzing
evidence of neglect or abuse, making relocation decisions), time to resolution may
increase. This prolongs uncertainty for children and parents.
o Costs to parties (legal fees, expert witnesses) may rise, making access to justice
harder for low-income families.
6. Unequal Effects Depending on Resource Disparities
o Parents with greater financial means, better legal representation, or prior
familiarity with family court will be better positioned to benefit from SB 174’s
provisions (e.g. in preparing detailed plans, proving why equal time is
inappropriate, asking for limitations).
o Parents without resources or with less capacity (time, money, ability to gather
evidence) may be disadvantaged, even if their concerns are legitimate.
7. Destabilization of Existing Parenting Orders
o SB 174 allows modification of existing orders under the new framework. That
means stable arrangements that have worked for years might get reopened or
challenged. Children’s lives could be disrupted by suddenly changing parenting
responsibilities.
o The transitional period could see a flood of motion filings, family law conflict,
and inconsistent rulings as courts interpret and apply the new law.
8. Risk of Overreach into Private Family Decisions
o By requiring detailed parenting plans that may include minutiae (communication
schedules, how often parents must be notified, etc.), the legislation may push
courts to micromanage family life in ways that are not helpful, burdensome, or
even harmful.
o Some everyday parental decisions may become points of legal contest, increasing
conflict rather than reducing it.
Thank you