OPPONENT TESTIMONY – SB 174
TESTIMONY OF Phil Creed
4bcreed@gmail.com
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
OHIO SENATE, 136TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
October 8, 2025
Chairman Manning, Vice Chair Reynolds, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson and members of the
Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony
on SB325.
My name is Phil Creed, I’m an engineer from Stark County with shared parenting and I strongly
urge you to reject this bill.
Politics is said to be downstream of culture. And SB174 is a political action – a bill driven by the
culture of Ohio’s badly-outdated Domestic Relations Courts trying to hold back the tide of
meaningful reform.
It's a culture that shuns the light of discovery or critical examination of its practices. A culture
that lobbied against citizen-driven initiatives introduced in the prior two Ohio General
Assemblies intended to truly diffuse conflict and prevent children from being needlessly
deprived of fit parents. A culture whose countergambit is a cynical, window dressing of Ohio’s
relevant statutes “non-reform” masquerading as reform.
SB174’s proponents proudly talk about “lowering the temperature” by rewording “residential
parent” to “designated parent”. Merely different words for the same adversarial system that
picks a “better” parent among two good parents, relegating countless Ohio children to de-facto
single-parent upbringings with statistical headwinds on virtually every socioeconomic measure.
People intuitively understand children invariably are the biggest losers if their parents fight.
SB174 offers up a milquetoast statewide public policy to “maximize time with each parent if it’s
in a child’s best interests” to, “enable a child to enjoy a meaningful relationship with both parents
or legal custodians.”
Borrowing Peter Drucker’s famous words, culture eats policy for breakfast. The family law
culture has already determined if it’s in the child’s best interest to maximize parenting time. As
of 2023, 45 of Ohio’s 88 counties still default to alternating weekends during the school year.
Judge Fuller’s proponent testimony that Ohio courts are “like 88 little different states doing 88
different things” unintentionally reveals the arbitrary, disparate outcomes of the child-parent
relationship for similarly-situated families.
State Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly recently wrote for criminal cases, “the absence
of any form of “guardrail” or check on this discretion produces different sentencing outcomes
based solely upon the individual proclivities of the judge.” This applies equally to domestic
relations courts.
The Supreme Court’s 2000 Troxel v. Granville decision rightly noted, “the interest of parents in
the care, custody, and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests recognized by this Court.” Fundamental liberties are things government presumes –
not determines -- fitness for absent contrary reasons.
The contrast between Troxell and SB174 couldn’t be clearer. Instead of codifying parents’
rights, SB 174 literally crosses them out at every opportunity.
This is not mere semantics. Children’s natural caregivers are their parents, not the government
and The Ohio General Assembly understood this clearly when it deferred to the latter when it
passed a "Parents Bill Of Rights” for the classroom. SB174 would differ power to the
government. What value do parents' rights have in a classroom if they’re absent in a
courtroom?
Proposed ORC 3109.044 dramatically expands requirements for all parenting plans to the point
of court micromanagement, notably requiring parenting plans to detail the frequency and nature
of communication between parents and children. This is big government run amok and the
perfect avenue for petty litigation springing from how often children text or FaceTime with the
other parent.
Current law allows courts to order psychological and psychiatric investigations or the
appointment of a GAL “prior to trial” under ORC 3109(C). But SB174 allows a court at its
discretion to order psychological, psychological, financial or medical investigations or a guardian
ad litem for, “any parenting plan” (3109.0439, 3109.0461). There is nothing “child-centric” about
courts arbitrarily ordering intrusive, expensive investigations to amicably divorcing parents who
didn’t ask for them.
SB174’s worst provision is the proposed ORC 3109.0412. Court-approved plans are currently,
“discretionary with the court” under ORC 3109.04 (D)(1)(B). Appellate rulings cite this and defer
broad discretion to lower courts but retain the power to reverse particularly egregious rulings.
But SB174’s proposed ORC 3109.0412 states, “The court shall have complete discretion over
the approval of a parenting plan”. Future appellate proceedings will now cite a domestic
relations court’s complete discretion instead of its broad discretion under ORC 3109.04
(D)(1)(B). Spurious decisions worthy of appellate review – like an abusive parent given custody
-- become appeal-proof ironclad dictates. Even agreements made in good faith are at risk.
There is nothing “child-centric” about courts that are essentially accountable to no one.
Lastly, for a bill saying it’s, “bringing our family courts into the 21st century”, proposed ORC
3109.071’s “clarifications” on child support are a swing and a miss. Ohio’s badly outdated child
State Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly recently wrote for criminal cases, “the absence
of any form of “guardrail” or check on this discretion produces different sentencing outcomes
based solely upon the individual proclivities of the judge.” This applies equally to domestic
relations courts.
The Supreme Court’s 2000 Troxel v. Granville decision rightly noted, “the interest of parents in
the care, custody, and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests recognized by this Court.” Fundamental liberties are things government presumes –
not determines -- fitness for absent contrary reasons.
The contrast between Troxell and SB174 couldn’t be clearer. Instead of codifying parents’
rights, SB 174 literally crosses them out at every opportunity.
This is not mere semantics. Children’s natural caregivers are their parents, not the government
and The Ohio General Assembly understood this clearly when it deferred to the latter when it
passed a "Parents Bill Of Rights” for the classroom. SB174 would differ power to the
government. What value do parents' rights have in a classroom if they’re absent in a
courtroom?
Proposed ORC 3109.044 dramatically expands requirements for all parenting plans to the point
of court micromanagement, notably requiring parenting plans to detail the frequency and nature
of communication between parents and children. This is big government run amok and the
perfect avenue for petty litigation springing from how often children text or FaceTime with the
other parent.
Current law allows courts to order psychological and psychiatric investigations or the
appointment of a GAL “prior to trial” under ORC 3109(C). But SB174 allows a court at its
discretion to order psychological, psychological, financial or medical investigations or a guardian
ad litem for, “any parenting plan” (3109.0439, 3109.0461). There is nothing “child-centric” about
courts arbitrarily ordering intrusive, expensive investigations to amicably divorcing parents who
didn’t ask for them.
SB174’s worst provision is the proposed ORC 3109.0412. Court-approved plans are currently,
“discretionary with the court” under ORC 3109.04 (D)(1)(B). Appellate rulings cite this and defer
broad discretion to lower courts but retain the power to reverse particularly egregious rulings.
But SB174’s proposed ORC 3109.0412 states, “The court shall have complete discretion over
the approval of a parenting plan”. Future appellate proceedings will now cite a domestic
relations court’s complete discretion instead of its broad discretion under ORC 3109.04
(D)(1)(B). Spurious decisions worthy of appellate review – like an abusive parent given custody
-- become appeal-proof ironclad dictates. Even agreements made in good faith are at risk.
There is nothing “child-centric” about courts that are essentially accountable to no one.
Lastly, for a bill saying it’s, “bringing our family courts into the 21st century”, proposed ORC
3109.071’s “clarifications” on child support are a swing and a miss. Ohio’s badly outdated child
support law still hasn’t established a method to determine the presumptive obligor or consistent
support orders for cases close to 50/50.
By contrast, all bordering states and 42 states in all have joined the 21st Century using
rebuttably-presumptive timeshare adjustments to determine the presumptive obligor and more
consistent payment amounts with ample judicial oversight for unusual cases.
In short, SB174 is a non-reform dressed as a reform that’s firmly cast a vote of, “no confidence”
in Ohio’s parents. It makes crystal clear three things – (1) only courts know what’s best for
children, (2) Ohio’s Domestic Relations courts have longstanding problems they don’t want
publicly discussed or scrutinized; thus (3) they are pushing for “complete discretion” to prevent
their decisions or newly-expansive powers from being second-guessed.
For the sake of Ohio’s children, I urge you to table this bill.
Thank you for your time and am open to answering any questions you may have.
--Phillip J. Creed
SOURCES:
NPO Ohio Parenting Time Report for 2023:
https://www.sharedparenting.org/ohio-parenting-time-
report#:~:text=2023%20Ohio%20Parenting%20Time%20Report,mandated%20local%20parenti
ng%20time%20rule.
SB174 Proponent Testimony:
https://ohiochannel.org/video/ohio-senate-judiciary-committee-5-14-2025
support orders for cases close to 50/50.
By contrast, all bordering states and 42 states in all have joined the 21st Century using
rebuttably-presumptive timeshare adjustments to determine the presumptive obligor and more
consistent payment amounts with ample judicial oversight for unusual cases.
In short, SB174 is a non-reform dressed as a reform that’s firmly cast a vote of, “no confidence”
in Ohio’s parents. It makes crystal clear three things – (1) only courts know what’s best for
children, (2) Ohio’s Domestic Relations courts have longstanding problems they don’t want
publicly discussed or scrutinized; thus (3) they are pushing for “complete discretion” to prevent
their decisions or newly-expansive powers from being second-guessed.
For the sake of Ohio’s children, I urge you to table this bill.
Thank you for your time and am open to answering any questions you may have.
--Phillip J. Creed
SOURCES:
NPO Ohio Parenting Time Report for 2023:
https://www.sharedparenting.org/ohio-parenting-time-
report#:~:text=2023%20Ohio%20Parenting%20Time%20Report,mandated%20local%20parenti
ng%20time%20rule.
SB174 Proponent Testimony:
https://ohiochannel.org/video/ohio-senate-judiciary-committee-5-14-2025