David Joyal
94 Pinewood St
Rittman, Ohio 44270
davidjoyal@gmail.com
October 7, 2025
To the Members of the Ohio General Assembly:
Subject: Opposition to Senate Bill 174 – Protect Children’s Right to Both
Parents
Dear Members of the Ohio Legislature,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Senate Bill 174 (Allocation of Parenting
Responsibilities) in its current form. While the bill aims to update Ohio’s custody and parenting
statutes, it poses serious risks to children and families by limiting fathers’ access to their kids
and weakening opportunities for children to have meaningful relationships with both parents.
Why Senate Bill 174 Is Harmful
1. It replaces “shared parenting” with a fragmented model that may reduce access.
SB 174 eliminates the current legal categories of shared parenting and sole custody,
substituting them with a “designated parent” and a set of divided “parenting responsibilities.”
This approach risks legally sidelining one parent—often the father—and reducing the time and
decision-making power that parent has in their child’s life.
(Source: JDSupra, “Ohio Senate Bill 174 and the Future of Shared Parenting”)
2. It restricts judicial flexibility.
Ohio’s current “best interest of the child” standard allows judges to consider each family’s
unique circumstances. SB 174 introduces rigid structures that could limit a judge’s ability to tailor
arrangements to what truly serves the child.
3. It comes amid an already unequal system.
Ohio ranks 44th out of 50 states in the amount of parenting time fathers receive—averaging
only 23.7% (about 87 days per year), far below the national average of 35%.
(Source: GRL Family Law, “Where Does Ohio Rank in Co-Parenting?”)
4. It risks entrenching existing bias.
The new “designated parent” label may further reinforce bias toward the current residential
parent, often leaving fathers marginalized. This conflicts with principles of fairness and equality
in Ohio family law.
5. The Ohio Bar Association and legal experts have voiced caution.
Even the Ohio Bar Association has warned that legislative overreach into custody law may
restrict judicial discretion and inadvertently harm families.
(Source: Ohio Bar Association, “Statehouse Connection—Leave It to the Judges”)
What the Research Shows
● Children thrive when both parents are involved.
Studies consistently show that children benefit emotionally, socially, and academically
from meaningful relationships with both parents.
○ King et al., “Nonresident Fathers’ Contributions to Adolescent Well-Being” (NIH,
PMC2239255)
○ Carlson et al., “Coparenting and Nonresident Fathers’ Involvement”
(PMC2831369)
○ Altenburger et al., “Resident and Non-resident Father Involvement” (Frontiers in
Psychology)
● Balanced parenting arrangements reduce conflict.
Dual-residence and shared-custody models generally lead to lower inter-parental
conflict and better emotional outcomes for children.
(Berman, “Children in Dual-Residence Arrangements,” Taylor & Francis)
● Restricting one parent increases instability.
When access is limited, children often experience higher stress and weaker attachment
bonds. Laws that curtail one parent’s role can cause long-term psychological and
relational harm.
Recommended Legislative Safeguards
If the General Assembly proceeds with SB 174, it should be substantially amended to protect
Ohio’s families:
1. Affirm a rebuttable presumption for substantial involvement by both parents.
Unless there is credible evidence of danger, both fit parents should receive significant
parenting time.
Even the Ohio Bar Association has warned that legislative overreach into custody law may
restrict judicial discretion and inadvertently harm families.
(Source: Ohio Bar Association, “Statehouse Connection—Leave It to the Judges”)
What the Research Shows
● Children thrive when both parents are involved.
Studies consistently show that children benefit emotionally, socially, and academically
from meaningful relationships with both parents.
○ King et al., “Nonresident Fathers’ Contributions to Adolescent Well-Being” (NIH,
PMC2239255)
○ Carlson et al., “Coparenting and Nonresident Fathers’ Involvement”
(PMC2831369)
○ Altenburger et al., “Resident and Non-resident Father Involvement” (Frontiers in
Psychology)
● Balanced parenting arrangements reduce conflict.
Dual-residence and shared-custody models generally lead to lower inter-parental
conflict and better emotional outcomes for children.
(Berman, “Children in Dual-Residence Arrangements,” Taylor & Francis)
● Restricting one parent increases instability.
When access is limited, children often experience higher stress and weaker attachment
bonds. Laws that curtail one parent’s role can cause long-term psychological and
relational harm.
Recommended Legislative Safeguards
If the General Assembly proceeds with SB 174, it should be substantially amended to protect
Ohio’s families:
1. Affirm a rebuttable presumption for substantial involvement by both parents.
Unless there is credible evidence of danger, both fit parents should receive significant
parenting time.
2. Require clear, evidence-based findings before limiting access.
Courts should provide written, fact-based reasons for any restriction, subject to periodic
review.
3. Preserve shared parenting as a viable framework.
Even under new terminology, the law should uphold collaborative, integrated parenting
plans.
4. Mandate mediation or co-parenting education before access is reduced.
These steps lower conflict and promote cooperation.
5. Guard against implicit bias.
The “designated parent” label must not create a presumption that one parent—usually
the father—is less capable or important.
6. Ensure accountability and appellate review.
Transparency in custody decisions protects families from unjust outcomes.
7. Maintain strong protections in cases of abuse or safety concerns.
Limitations should be narrowly applied, evidence-based, and regularly reassessed.
Conclusion
Ohio’s children deserve access to both responsible parents, and fathers deserve a fair chance
to remain active in their children’s lives. Senate Bill 174, as written, undermines that principle. I
respectfully urge the Ohio General Assembly to oppose SB 174 in its current form or to adopt
substantial amendments that preserve balanced parenting, judicial discretion, and the true best
interests of children.
Respectfully submitted,
David Joyal
Rittman, Ohio 44270
davidjoyal@gmail.com
Courts should provide written, fact-based reasons for any restriction, subject to periodic
review.
3. Preserve shared parenting as a viable framework.
Even under new terminology, the law should uphold collaborative, integrated parenting
plans.
4. Mandate mediation or co-parenting education before access is reduced.
These steps lower conflict and promote cooperation.
5. Guard against implicit bias.
The “designated parent” label must not create a presumption that one parent—usually
the father—is less capable or important.
6. Ensure accountability and appellate review.
Transparency in custody decisions protects families from unjust outcomes.
7. Maintain strong protections in cases of abuse or safety concerns.
Limitations should be narrowly applied, evidence-based, and regularly reassessed.
Conclusion
Ohio’s children deserve access to both responsible parents, and fathers deserve a fair chance
to remain active in their children’s lives. Senate Bill 174, as written, undermines that principle. I
respectfully urge the Ohio General Assembly to oppose SB 174 in its current form or to adopt
substantial amendments that preserve balanced parenting, judicial discretion, and the true best
interests of children.
Respectfully submitted,
David Joyal
Rittman, Ohio 44270
davidjoyal@gmail.com