1 of 4
Anthony Slosser
614-395-0944
ajslosser@gmail.com
Re: Senate Bill 174 – Opponent Testimony
Judiciary Committee
Ohio Senate
136 th General Assembly
October 8, 2025
Chair Manning, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
BACKGROUND
Research is clear that children do best when both parents are involved. Among other issues,
children raised without the active involvement of two parents are more likely to: fail in school, i use
drugs, ii commit crimes, iii engage in early sexual activity iv and commit suicide. v Additionally, studies
indicate that having secure and high-quality relationships with both mothers and fathers is superior to
having only one secure relationship, regardless of whether that secure relationship is with mother or
with father, vi and that maintaining strong child-parent relationships necessitates spending time with
children, especially given children’s rapid development both within and across developmental periods. vii
Moreover, when polled, nearly nine in ten Ohioans have expressed a belief that children have the right
to equal or near equal time with each parent after a divorce or separation. 1
In 1987, the Ohio Domestic Relations Task Force identified that custody was granted to the
mother in approximately 90% of all cases, noting dissatisfaction among the public with such a system. 2
In 2001, the Ohio Supreme Court Task Force on Family Law and Children identified a win-lose culture in
Ohio’s family courts, based on an imbalance of the parenting time division (usually a 75%-25% split) and
the understanding that the parent with the larger portion of the child’s time would have control over
most major life decisions. Furthermore, that same task force identified that a parent expecting to be
victorious had little incentive to mediate or engage in any other constructive, cooperative process to
create a parenting plan. 3 In both instances, solutions were implemented in an effort to correct this
parent-sidelining culture, notably by updating the language of the Ohio Revised Code and granting
courts more authority to determine the best interests of the child.
Nevertheless, a recent study showed that only one in six child support orders correspond to a
parenting time order that provides each parent with at least 90 overnights (a 75%-25% split) and fewer
than 1% of orders had been deviated explicitly due to equal parenting time. 4 In other words, Ohio
courts have perpetuated the problematic culture identified nearly 40 years ago.
1 https://www.sharedparenting.org/shared-parenting-polling
2 Final Report of the Domestic Relations Task Force, 6/30/1987; pg. 16.
3 Final Report of the Task Force on Family Law and Children, 6/20/2001; pg. 8.
4 ODJFS 2023 Child Support Guidelines Review, Appendix B, pg. 117-132.
2 of 4
PERCEPTION VS. REALITY
How does Senate Bill 174 address the massive disconnect between what Ohioans know and
want with how the court is operating? For starters, the supporters cite the main goal of the task force:
an acknowledgement that the parent-child relationship is of fundamental importance to the welfare of a
child and the relationship between a child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with
the child’s best interest. If that sounds familiar, it should; those exact words have been the official
policy of this state for over 25 years. 5 Notwithstanding this decades-old policy, Ohio courts routinely
foster one parent’s relationship with the child at the expense of the other.
From there, Senate Bill 174 acts on the task force’s recommendation to achieve that goal by
altering the language of the ORC. By discontinuing the use of the “custodial parent” label, supporters
intend to “remove the perception that one parent may have the upper hand”. 6 With great significance
placed on the meaning of words, it is telling that the sponsors have deliberately set out to remove the
perception that one parent may have the upper hand. Apparently, they are not as inclined to remove
the reality that one parent has the upper hand, because they have left intact the process by which
parental rights responsibilities are allocated; i.e. “best interest of the child” is still subject to the
preconceived biases of the jurist.
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
Senate Bill 174 does not “more clearly define” the best interest of the child, because current law
lacks a definition in the first place. While the best interest factors have been part of Ohio law since at
least 1981, they are not a definition of best interest in and of themselves. Those factors have been
altered and added to over the years, as Senate Bill 174 is proposing to do yet again, but because courts
are already directed to consider all relevant factors (emphasis added), 7 such proposals amount to sleight
of hand, meant to give the impression that change has occurred.
Additionally, there is no guidance for the court on how to weigh the factors or where to begin.
Therefore, the definition of “best interest” is subject to the whim of the jurist and allows them to
implement their preferred parenting style. The erasure of parental rights 8 and addition of “complete
discretion” 9 grants the court even more authority to dictate how our children will be raised and cements
the one-parent, one-visitor model that has survived decades of previous language manipulation.
A GIANT LEAP BACKWARDS
It has been stated that this legislation modernizes Ohio’s family courts, bringing them into the
21 st century. 10 Aside from continued reliance on the subjective best interest factors that have been the
5 Amended Senate Bill 112 of the 122nd General Assembly; 9/1/1998.
6 Testimonies of Senator Gavarone, 4/30/25; pg. 1 and Judge Fuller, 5/14/25; pg. 2.
7 ORC 3109.04(F)(1).
8 Senate Bill 174, LSC Analysis; pg. 9.
9 Senate Bill 174, LSC Analysis; pg. 15.
10 Testimony of Senator Hicks-Hudson, 4/30/25; pg. 2.
PERCEPTION VS. REALITY
How does Senate Bill 174 address the massive disconnect between what Ohioans know and
want with how the court is operating? For starters, the supporters cite the main goal of the task force:
an acknowledgement that the parent-child relationship is of fundamental importance to the welfare of a
child and the relationship between a child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with
the child’s best interest. If that sounds familiar, it should; those exact words have been the official
policy of this state for over 25 years. 5 Notwithstanding this decades-old policy, Ohio courts routinely
foster one parent’s relationship with the child at the expense of the other.
From there, Senate Bill 174 acts on the task force’s recommendation to achieve that goal by
altering the language of the ORC. By discontinuing the use of the “custodial parent” label, supporters
intend to “remove the perception that one parent may have the upper hand”. 6 With great significance
placed on the meaning of words, it is telling that the sponsors have deliberately set out to remove the
perception that one parent may have the upper hand. Apparently, they are not as inclined to remove
the reality that one parent has the upper hand, because they have left intact the process by which
parental rights responsibilities are allocated; i.e. “best interest of the child” is still subject to the
preconceived biases of the jurist.
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
Senate Bill 174 does not “more clearly define” the best interest of the child, because current law
lacks a definition in the first place. While the best interest factors have been part of Ohio law since at
least 1981, they are not a definition of best interest in and of themselves. Those factors have been
altered and added to over the years, as Senate Bill 174 is proposing to do yet again, but because courts
are already directed to consider all relevant factors (emphasis added), 7 such proposals amount to sleight
of hand, meant to give the impression that change has occurred.
Additionally, there is no guidance for the court on how to weigh the factors or where to begin.
Therefore, the definition of “best interest” is subject to the whim of the jurist and allows them to
implement their preferred parenting style. The erasure of parental rights 8 and addition of “complete
discretion” 9 grants the court even more authority to dictate how our children will be raised and cements
the one-parent, one-visitor model that has survived decades of previous language manipulation.
A GIANT LEAP BACKWARDS
It has been stated that this legislation modernizes Ohio’s family courts, bringing them into the
21 st century. 10 Aside from continued reliance on the subjective best interest factors that have been the
5 Amended Senate Bill 112 of the 122nd General Assembly; 9/1/1998.
6 Testimonies of Senator Gavarone, 4/30/25; pg. 1 and Judge Fuller, 5/14/25; pg. 2.
7 ORC 3109.04(F)(1).
8 Senate Bill 174, LSC Analysis; pg. 9.
9 Senate Bill 174, LSC Analysis; pg. 15.
10 Testimony of Senator Hicks-Hudson, 4/30/25; pg. 2.
3 of 4
core of family law for over 40 years, this bill encourages courts to craft parenting plans in a manner
consistent with the child’s age and development level. Such direction effectively codifies the Tender
Years Doctrine and flies in the face of modern research showing that equal parenting is best, even
among infants and toddlers. viii
For actual modernization of family law practices, we can simply look across the river at our
neighbors in Kentucky and West Virginia. Along with Arkansas, Missouri and Florida, each of those
states have adopted rebuttable presumptions of equal parenting since 2018. But one need not look
outside of the state to see progress toward equality. A handful of Ohio counties have already adopted
standard parenting time schedules that provide an equal division of the parenting time and several more
have updated their local rules to move toward equality (no counties have moved away from equality).
INCREASED LITIGATION
Senate Bill 174 is retroactive, permitting parties to any previous decree to file a motion with the
court requesting the issuance of a new parenting plan under the bill’s provisions. 11 Additionally, the
“change of circumstance” clause has been expanded, 12 allowing for an even greater likelihood that
previously settled cases will be reopened. Both provisions will result in more billable hours for
attorneys, while adding to court dockets.
SUMMARY
There was nothing preventing Ohio’s courts from instituting culture change on their own, to put
into practice the policy outlined by the General Assembly in 1998. Instead, they chose to continue the
win-lose, grossly-imbalanced, preferred-parent arrangement that was identified as a major roadblock to
collaborative parenting. Senate Bill 174 does not do anything to correct this culture, because it was not
designed to. The proponents of this bill make money off of our conflict and actually solving the
problems of family court would be bad for business.
Senate Bill 174 merely repackages a decades-old policy with meaningless platitudes, passing it
off as revolutionary and modern. It does not offer actual reform, as there is no actionable difference
between this proposal and current law. Fortunately, we already know that language manipulation does
not work. There is no reason to believe that *this time* will be any different.
I urge the committee to align with Ohio families, not the special interests that profit off of us.
Reject Senate Bill 174.
-Anthony Slosser
11 Senate Bill 174, LSC Analysis; pg. 36.
12 Senate Bill 174, LSC Analysis; pg. 20.
core of family law for over 40 years, this bill encourages courts to craft parenting plans in a manner
consistent with the child’s age and development level. Such direction effectively codifies the Tender
Years Doctrine and flies in the face of modern research showing that equal parenting is best, even
among infants and toddlers. viii
For actual modernization of family law practices, we can simply look across the river at our
neighbors in Kentucky and West Virginia. Along with Arkansas, Missouri and Florida, each of those
states have adopted rebuttable presumptions of equal parenting since 2018. But one need not look
outside of the state to see progress toward equality. A handful of Ohio counties have already adopted
standard parenting time schedules that provide an equal division of the parenting time and several more
have updated their local rules to move toward equality (no counties have moved away from equality).
INCREASED LITIGATION
Senate Bill 174 is retroactive, permitting parties to any previous decree to file a motion with the
court requesting the issuance of a new parenting plan under the bill’s provisions. 11 Additionally, the
“change of circumstance” clause has been expanded, 12 allowing for an even greater likelihood that
previously settled cases will be reopened. Both provisions will result in more billable hours for
attorneys, while adding to court dockets.
SUMMARY
There was nothing preventing Ohio’s courts from instituting culture change on their own, to put
into practice the policy outlined by the General Assembly in 1998. Instead, they chose to continue the
win-lose, grossly-imbalanced, preferred-parent arrangement that was identified as a major roadblock to
collaborative parenting. Senate Bill 174 does not do anything to correct this culture, because it was not
designed to. The proponents of this bill make money off of our conflict and actually solving the
problems of family court would be bad for business.
Senate Bill 174 merely repackages a decades-old policy with meaningless platitudes, passing it
off as revolutionary and modern. It does not offer actual reform, as there is no actionable difference
between this proposal and current law. Fortunately, we already know that language manipulation does
not work. There is no reason to believe that *this time* will be any different.
I urge the committee to align with Ohio families, not the special interests that profit off of us.
Reject Senate Bill 174.
-Anthony Slosser
11 Senate Bill 174, LSC Analysis; pg. 36.
12 Senate Bill 174, LSC Analysis; pg. 20.
4 of 4
Studies cited:
i McLanahan, Sara et al., “The Causal Effects of Father Absence,” Annual review of Sociology
39(2013)399-427; Lundbert, Shelly, “Father Absence and the Educational Gender Gap,” IZA Discussion
Papers, No. 10814, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn.
ii Hoffmann, John P. “The Community Context of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 64 (May 2002)314-330; Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., Capps, R. C., & Zaff, J., “The
influence of father involvement on youth risk behaviors among adolescents: A comparison of native-born
and immigrant families,” Social Science Research, 35(2004)181-209.
iii Demuth, Stephen and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency:
The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
41-1(February 2004)58-81; Bush, Connee, Ronald L. Mullis, and Ann K. Mullis, “Differences in Empathy
Between Offender and Nonoffender Youth,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29 (August 2000)467-478;
Coley, R. L., & Medeiros, B. L., “Reciprocal Longitudinal Relations Between Nonresident Father Involvement
and Adolescent Delinquency,” Child Development 78(2007)132-147; Hill, M. A., & O’Neill, J., Underclass
behaviorsin the United States: Measurement and analysis of determinants(1993) New York: City University of
New York.
iv Ellis, Bruce J., et al, “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and
Teenage Pregnancy?,” Child Development 74-3(2003)801-821.
v Weitoft, Gunilla Ringbäck, “Mortality, Severe Morbidity, and Injury in Children Living with Single Parents in
Sweden: A Population-based Study,” The Lancet 361-9354(January 25, 2003) 289-295,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12324-0
vi Dagan, O., Schuengel, C., Verhage, M. L., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Sagi-Schwartz, A., Madigan, S., ... &
Collaboration on Attachment to Multiple Parents and Outcomes Synthesis. (2021). Configurations of
mother-child and father-child attachment as predictors of internalizing and externalizing behavioral
problems: An individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 180, 67-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20450
vii Adamsons, K. (2018). Quantity versus quality of nonresident father involvement: Deconstructing the argument
that quantity doesn’t matter. Journal of Child Custody, 15(1), 26-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2018.1437002
viii Warshak, Richard, et al., “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report,”
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 20-1(2014)46-67; Warshak, Richard, “Night Shifts: Revisiting Blanket
Restrictions on Children’s Overnights With Separated Parents,” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 59-4
(2018)282-323; Fabricius, William V. and Go Woon Suh, “Should Infants and Toddlers Have Frequent
Overnight Parenting Time With Fathers? The Policy Debate and New Data,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
23-1(2017)68-84; Bergström, Malin et al., “Preschool Children Living in Joint Physical Custody
Arrangements Show Less Psychological Symptoms Than Those Living Mostly or Only With One Parent,” Acta
Pædiatrica 107(2018)294-300.
Studies cited:
i McLanahan, Sara et al., “The Causal Effects of Father Absence,” Annual review of Sociology
39(2013)399-427; Lundbert, Shelly, “Father Absence and the Educational Gender Gap,” IZA Discussion
Papers, No. 10814, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn.
ii Hoffmann, John P. “The Community Context of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 64 (May 2002)314-330; Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., Capps, R. C., & Zaff, J., “The
influence of father involvement on youth risk behaviors among adolescents: A comparison of native-born
and immigrant families,” Social Science Research, 35(2004)181-209.
iii Demuth, Stephen and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency:
The Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
41-1(February 2004)58-81; Bush, Connee, Ronald L. Mullis, and Ann K. Mullis, “Differences in Empathy
Between Offender and Nonoffender Youth,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29 (August 2000)467-478;
Coley, R. L., & Medeiros, B. L., “Reciprocal Longitudinal Relations Between Nonresident Father Involvement
and Adolescent Delinquency,” Child Development 78(2007)132-147; Hill, M. A., & O’Neill, J., Underclass
behaviorsin the United States: Measurement and analysis of determinants(1993) New York: City University of
New York.
iv Ellis, Bruce J., et al, “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and
Teenage Pregnancy?,” Child Development 74-3(2003)801-821.
v Weitoft, Gunilla Ringbäck, “Mortality, Severe Morbidity, and Injury in Children Living with Single Parents in
Sweden: A Population-based Study,” The Lancet 361-9354(January 25, 2003) 289-295,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12324-0
vi Dagan, O., Schuengel, C., Verhage, M. L., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Sagi-Schwartz, A., Madigan, S., ... &
Collaboration on Attachment to Multiple Parents and Outcomes Synthesis. (2021). Configurations of
mother-child and father-child attachment as predictors of internalizing and externalizing behavioral
problems: An individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 180, 67-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20450
vii Adamsons, K. (2018). Quantity versus quality of nonresident father involvement: Deconstructing the argument
that quantity doesn’t matter. Journal of Child Custody, 15(1), 26-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2018.1437002
viii Warshak, Richard, et al., “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report,”
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 20-1(2014)46-67; Warshak, Richard, “Night Shifts: Revisiting Blanket
Restrictions on Children’s Overnights With Separated Parents,” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 59-4
(2018)282-323; Fabricius, William V. and Go Woon Suh, “Should Infants and Toddlers Have Frequent
Overnight Parenting Time With Fathers? The Policy Debate and New Data,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
23-1(2017)68-84; Bergström, Malin et al., “Preschool Children Living in Joint Physical Custody
Arrangements Show Less Psychological Symptoms Than Those Living Mostly or Only With One Parent,” Acta
Pædiatrica 107(2018)294-300.