Ohio House Judiciary Committee - 6-3-2026

Chair Thomas?

Vice Chair Thuringen?

Ranking Member Sindenburg?

Representative Pickle Antonio?

Representative Jamie Callender?

Representative Adam Matthews?

Representative Vishwa Mohammed?

Representative Mike Odiosa?

Representative Scott Oleslager?

Representative Phil Plummer?

Representative Brian Seward?

Representative Desiree Timms? President Joshua Leans checked in.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to favorably report House Bill 345 out of committee and recommend its passage.

Chairman Thomas?

Vice President Swearingen?

Banking Member Sindenburg?

Representative Piccolo-Antonio?

Representative Callender? Representative Matthews?

Representative Muhammad?

Representative Rodriguez?

Representative Volsiger?

Representative Plummer?

Representative Seward?

Representative Timms? Representative Williams?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to favor Blue Report House Bill 441 out of committee and recommend its passage.

Chairman Thomas?

Vice President Swearengin?

Member Sindenburg?

Representative Picle Antonio?

Representative Callender Representative Matthews Representative Muhammad Representative Arioso Representative Volsler Representative Plummer Representative Stewart Representative Timms Representative Williams

thank you Mr. Chairman I move to favor the report House Bill 314 out of committee and recommend its passage

Chairman Thomas?

Vice President Reingen?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Supposed to be Representative Williams.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. move to accept Amendment 2550 for House Bill 528.

This adds changes to the definition of sexual contact, helping to penalize rape and sexual assault consistently for forceful assault of all crimes and makes the bill applicable for assault on both male and female and makes legal definitions consistent with contemporary viewpoints of the crime.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to favorably report House Bill 528 out of committee and recommend its passage.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to amend with Amendment 2470.

This amendment allows for an option of providing a supplemental document cross-referencing changes made to industry standard contracts. It also creates an alternative to the changes made in this bill for contracts that are saved in inflexible structures such as PDF or printed copies It also allows for increased ease of compliance while still maintaining this bill goal of transparent negotiation

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Motion to approve Senate Bill 262 and report to the Committee on Rules and Reference and recommend this passage.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Representative Olsinger? Yes.

Representative Stewart? Yes.

Representative Williams?

Thank you so much. Chairman Thomas, Vice Chairman Swearingen, Ranking Member of Sendenberg, and members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on Senate Bill 278. This legislation will allow citizens to seek punitive or exemplary damages against municipalities who enact unconstitutional gun control measures As it stands today in Ohio it is left to the responsibility of our citizens to challenge and repeal these unconstitutional restrictions often through the judicial process, and unfortunately, out of their own pockets. Our citizens should feel emboldened if they are to overturn these unlawful regulations without having to face the financial burden for doing what is right as well. I strongly believe in home rule. Small local government is at the heart of our republic and the American tradition. However, the line must be drawn at anything that actually violates our constitutions. These are the enshrining documents which supersede all else within our country. Rights like freedom of speech or due process are seldom tampered with by our municipalities, yet we often find the Second Amendment under such threats by local ordinances or rules. An example of such infringements is both concerning and pressing. Back in 2022, the city of Columbus passed Ordinance 3176-2022, and then subsequently in 2023, Ordinance 0680-2023, both of which are still being fought in courts and would justify being found unlawful, citing Ohio's firearms uniformity law, which the Ohio Supreme Court has already affirmed that it does not violate the home rule portion of the Ohio Constitution. There is currently nothing preventing such municipalities from continually placing law-abiding citizens in this gauntlet and thereby restricting the rights of all of our citizens. With this legislation, quite simply, it's my hope that we will impose potential financial repercussions for these cities that so frivolously disregard the rights of our residents, of their residents. Of course, we should allow vigilant defenders of freedom to go through the proper judicial process while simultaneously having financial protections for doing so through the pursuit of punitive or exemplary damages. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of this bill, and, sir, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Yes, thank you, Chair Thomas. Thank you, Senator, for being here today and for bringing this forward.

I don't know specifically what the Columbus ordinances that you referenced are about, so I'm admittedly saying this unknowing that. However, can you maybe explain what these local, to your understanding, what these local controls, gun control laws were about?

Follow up? No, no follow-up. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for this bill. So, you know, a while ago we had municipalities that were trying to restrict the individual's right to carry openly in parks. And essentially they were, you know, superseded by Ohio law, but that had to go to court. Is the intent of the bill like this when a municipality tries to put in restrictions that are clearly in conflict with Ohio law, Individuals sues and seeks damages. They're able to get exemplary damages, increased damages, essentially. Is that the premise of the bill?

Ranking Member Sinberg with follow-up.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator. So in your testimony, obviously, you say that you believe strongly in home rule and small government is at the heart of our republic and the American tradition. So, and this is my first term, so please forgive me if I'm stating the history wrong, But my understanding is that this body, this legislature, has been very inconsistent in what home rules we allow and don't allow. So in Cuyahoga County, where I'm from, they had passed a local ordinance that plastic bags should not be used. And this legislature overturned that. So I think, what is your response to how maybe this body has been inconsistent in when we do and do not respect actual home rule local control?

Representative Timms with a question. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here today to talk about this bill. I'll be frank, I don't support it, but I would like to know a little bit more about why or what were the arguments from some of the mayors who were against this bill, because I'd like to hear a little bit more about that, if you don't mind. Like, I know I'm hearing the proponent, the supporting argument. Can you give me the opposing argument?

Okay. I assume that they did send some representatives to oppose it in the Senate. I guess my next question is a little bit about the impact on municipalities. Should this bill become law? Do you have any estimates of, I guess, worst-case scenario for a municipality in terms of their finances? Have you run any estimates or any budgets or any numbers of the long-term detrimental effects of this bill?

Any other questions for the sponsor? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

This concludes the first hearing for Senate Bill 278. Thank you. Is David Kale here? David Kale. So 459? Yes. Nobody? Nope. Someone's in the room. We do need to call in. Okay. All right. I'd like to call up House Bill 459 for its third hearing. Since we received no testimony, we are going to now conclude the third hearing for House Bill 459 I'd now like to call up Senate Bill 174 for its third hearing. And our first witness is Donald Cuban. Welcome to committee. Please proceed when you're ready.

Sir, thank you for your testimony. Representative Williams has a question.

So through the chair, Representative Williams, thank you for that question, and also thank you for your work to improve this bill. We genuinely appreciate that. Whether it's a step in the right direction depends on whether this body is willing to revisit this when we have some data about the effects of it. If this body says, we took care of that problem in 2026, it's all done, and we can't revisit this question for another 25 or 30 years, then this is not an improvement. This is, even if it's a temporary step in the right direction, it doesn't get us where we need to be. Follow up?

Will you at least say that this is a good model, a step in the right direction towards a better model. It may not be the best, but we work tirelessly on this legislation. You know my opposition in the beginning. We spent countless hours doing things like removing the complete discretion language. We even have some other proposals that we'll be negotiating about fitness, right, a presumption of fitness of parents I think is important. But this goes in the right direction. It provides some of the structure where two fit parents can agree to a parenting plan. It gives that deference, that rebuttable presumption that the court should be granting that stuff. But when you have parents in conflict, that's where it becomes difficult.

Dr. Hubin, can you change, can you move the microphone up so we can just hear you a little bit better?

Follow Representative Williams.

Through the chair of Representative Williams. Thanks. I feel like I'm back in the philosophy seminar. I appreciate that. So, look, the Supreme Court did not in the Troxel decision define special weight. I agree. But it did say what I quoted in my testimony here, that the problem with the Washington statute was it did not rely on the presumption that fit parents act in the best interest of their children. So I take that to be an implication that the court is saying that's what it means by special weight, that they have to presume that fit parents are acting in the best interest of their children. Now, to the larger question, it is true that in the Troxell decision, as I recall, there isn't this specific language, but we have 100 years of Supreme Court decisions that speak as clearly as these things ever do to parental rights being fundamental constitutional rights. And I'll note that one of the written testifiers here submitted just my 1999 paper, Parental Rights in Due Process, in which I argue this at length. I had not known that would happen. But if indeed parental rights are fundamental constitutional rights and this goes back to at least the early 1900s 1920 or so if they are fundamental constitutional rights, that has specific meaning in the law. It means that infringements on those rights are subject to strict scrutiny. The state has to show that it has a compelling state interest and that there is no lesser way, no less offensive, constitutionally offensive way to achieve that compelling state interest. And so I don't believe I'm asking the legislature to create something for the judiciary. The judiciary has already done it. It has said these are fundamental constitutional rights. whether parents are living together or apart, if they come to the court with a joint plan, I think the court is constitutionally required to treat that as presumptively in the best interest of the child. Of course it can be overridden. Parents can introduce a joint plan that would be harmful to children, and then it should be overridden. But there should be a determination because the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children from harm, even from their parents, of course.

That's a compelling state interest.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. My opposition to this point to the bill is I think we currently have a situation in Ohio where largely domestic relations law is incredibly subjective and depends on where you live and the subjective determinations of that independently elected judge. This bill just sort of further bakes that cake and says, well, we're still going to have an entirely subjective determination made. How long you get your kids depends on what your zip code is. And we're going to bake that further into the statute just with a little extra fluffy language to make it look like we did something. Everybody knows what it would take to get this bill out of committee. Everybody who's opposed to it says actually put in writing what you say you're trying to do, which is start from a presumption where you get your kids until somebody proves you're unfit, rather than you don't get your kids until you go out and hire lawyers to prove that you are fit. Am I understanding your opposition to the bill correctly to say that this is still a vastly too subjective process when we're talking about parental rights?

Follow-up?

Through the chair and to Representative Stewart, I do believe it's your job. I mean, the Troxel decision said there should be special weight. I think there's more we can infer from the Troxel decision. that there has to be a presumption that parents act in the best interest of their children, but it's the legislature's role to determine what constitutes special weight. As this bill is currently written, all is required is for a judge to say, after giving special weight to the joint decision of the parents, I find that this is not in the children's best interest. That's all they have to say, right?

Seeing none, we thank you for your testimony. Committee will stand at ease for a moment. Thank you. so you Music Thank you. I'm going to go back to House Bill 686 for its second hearing. I'm going to ask David Kale. I'm going to call David Kale for testimony. Would you like to say hello? Say hello. Welcome to committee. Okay, buddy, will you come over here? Right here. Let's sit here. Mr. Jalen. Good morning, everybody.

Please speak a little bit louder.

Okay.

Yes.

Mr. Carroll, thank you for your testimony. I'm sorry to hear the challenges that you and your son have had to go through. Hopefully we can make some improvements so people don't have to do it in the future. And I believe Representative Piccolo Antonio has a question for you.

That may be worked for us to figure out. And that's a very good question. I appreciate that. These are the things that I came across and I've asked other parents when we were working on the bill. If juvenile court in this case or domestic court kept their case open, then that would mean whichever parent was assigned as the custodial parent still stays as the custodial parent. So I would assume, but I would give to you guys because you've got smarter minds than me. if you look at this and you are comfortable that that's what it does, then we're good with it. If it needs to have stronger language in there, and again, not just doctors, but health care providers, we need to make sure that the health care providers that provide the insurance for these individuals know that you don't start changing things until that probate order comes through, So that way he's not in the process of being switched from Medicaid, which is the health care of just about all of these individuals. They switch him to Medicare. And here's something that I learned with his speech therapy. They say he has dual coverage, meaning he has coverage from both Medicaid and Medicare. But as soon as he turned 18 and they switched his coverages, his speech therapist came to me and she said, we can no longer do speech therapy for him. And I said, why? She said, because we don't bill Medicare. And I said, but he has dual coverage. That's how it was explained to me. She said, but what they didn't explain is Medicaid is billed through Medicare for individuals like this once they reach the age of 18. We don't bill Medicaid directly. So because we don't bill Medicaid directly, he can have all the Medicaid coverage that he wants. We can't bill them. Therefore, you can't come to us any longer for speech therapy. So we've been we still have challenges. We're trying to figure out how to get him back into speech therapy. So, yeah, there might be some things that you guys might want to look at as far as the language and try to make it as airtight as possible. But the concept, the idea is we're coming to you and saying, here's something that nobody's brought to you before. For their sake, we need to do something to close these up so that he doesn't – I don't want to see anybody have to go through 16 months of what we went through for whatever health reason, appendix, teeth, whatever it is. We want to close this up so that they can get the quality of health care that they need and continue from their 18th birthday on.

Thank you, though. I'm available. Anytime.

Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearengen, Ranking Member Sendenberg and fellow members of the Ohio House Judiciary Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on House Bill 622, the Mental Health and Community Wellness Act. I would also like to thank my joint sponsor, Representative Rob Laysdale, for her work on this very important issue that can affect a very important area of Ohio. When a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial due to mental health factors, judges are often faced with an inevitable decision. Do they order the defendant to go through mental health treatment where the defendant can refuse their necessary medications, or do they dismiss the case? On one hand, a significant number of judges dismiss these sorts of charges, letting mentally ill criminals right back onto the streets. On the other hand, most criminals, which are ordered to undergo mental health treatment, recidivate anyway, binding judges and prosecutors to a catch-22 governed by ineffective laws, preventing courts from meaningfully restoring competency to criminals. These sorts of laws needlessly threaten our communities with criminals who should be imprisoned but roam the communities because our justice system has no real corrective measures to stop them This legislation the Mental Health Community Wellness Act seeks to put a stop to this pointless and absurd judiciary leniency which our state implicitly requires when attempting to deal with some of our worst and trickiest offenders. The Mental Health Community Wellness Act does this in a few different ways. First, the bill expands the definition of a person with mental illness subject to court order. to individuals who represent a substantial risk of physical harm to themselves or others as evidenced by threats or evidence of self-harm, violent threats of behavior, or unwillingness to provide or take care of oneself. This definition also now covers individuals who would benefit from treatment as evidenced by behavior which indicate an inability to survive safely without supervision or by a lack of compliance with prior mental health treatments. Second, this legislation mandates that prosecutors file a civil commitment of a defendant in probate court when the defendant is deemed incompetent to stand trial and is accused of a felony or violent misdemeanor. Further, the court would then have the power to detain the defendant for up to 10 days while civil commitment proceedings are initiated. When under civil commitment, facilities and hospitals would then be granted the ability to petition for involuntary administration of medication if it is deemed necessary to restore competency to stand trial. Finally, this bill would expand the types of facilities that defendants can be held in for civil commitment while having their jurisdiction retained by the court. This bill would also ensure that facilities in which these incompetent defendants are kept will report regularly to the courts, updating the court on a defendant's mental status and competency to stand trial. When it comes to protecting our communities, there is no price too steep to pay. This makes it even better when we take massive steps towards making our community safe with minor judicial changes, empowering our courts and prosecutors to intervene for the better in a mentally incompetent defendant's life. The Mental Health Community Wellness Act will finally give our courts to tools that are needed to ensure mentally incompetent defendants are forced to seek treatment, face fair trials for their crimes, and are protected from our community at large. Thank you, Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearengen, and Ranking Member Sennenberg. I will now turn it over to my joint sponsor to continue our testimony.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Ranking Member Sinnenberg has a question.

So the way the process works now, you have a hearing to determine competency. Defendants can be found competent or incompetent but restorable or incompetent non-restorable. If they're incompetent but restorable, they can be held for a period of time. We addressed that in earlier legislation about the term, typically it's a year, that you're able to hold an individual and try to restore them to competency. This is both for individuals with learning disabilities and individuals that are actually incompetent due to a mental illness. If they are restored to competency, they stay in trial. If they are never restored or were unrestorable under Ohio law, the case is dismissed. Now the courts can grant, the prosecutor can move for the courts to retain jurisdiction. So in the future, if you become competent, we can try you. But what happens now is that person's found incompetent, the case is dismissed, and typically the prosecutor will move for civil confinement in probate court. What I have in my possession now is an email from my local probate judge who pretty much wrote to us and said that the probate court is not the savior of the criminal justice system. That the way the statute's written now, unless the person is a threat to themselves or other, they're not going to get civil confinement. So a refusal to undergo mental health treatment is not a factor that you can put someone in for civil confinement under current law. I want that to be a factor. Criminality, a person that continues to engage in crime, if it's not violent, they're not able to put them in civil confinement. So for instance, in Toledo, we have a particular individual. He's not a defendant of mine, so I can provide the information to the committee. He has over 74 cases in Toledo Municipal Court that were all dismissed because he's incompetent. So he runs down the street naked. He beats on cars with locks in a sock. He breaks windows out of businesses. And since they're misdemeanors, they are dismissed automatically. And he's put right back out on the street. And I even had a personal client that I represented who committed an offense, went to Flower Hospital under a pink slip. 36 hours later, they released him back out, gave him his items, which included a lock and the sock, and he ran two blocks down the street and started beating on cars in traffic with the lock and the sock, got rearrested because they couldn't hold him. So our bill gives the courts more factors to be able to be considered

Yes, please. Thank you. So the goal is to, in the case like this gentleman that you mentioned, for him to be held in civil confinement for a longer period of time. So he's not back doing the 75th, 76th, 77th, and 78th crimes, acts of crime. Through the chairs, the ranking member, yes, that's the goal. And in the bill, the way that we drafted it, the factors that we considered in Section 5, in that section, And if the courts use that the individual has to have a criminal case pending in order to use that civil confinement section that is kind of an increased opportunity to put a person in So that is intended for people that are engaging in criminal conduct And there a few reasons why When you have these low level misdemeanors that are not violent in nature and you find someone incompetent but restorable, the period of restoration is very short, like 30 days, sometimes six months. So then you take a person and put them and give them medication, but they will just refuse. And then they're never restored, they're put back onto the street. So there's a gap in the system and at least one of my municipal court judges hopefully will be coming in to testify about this because she feels like her hands are tied behind her back. She knows the individual is going to reoffend. She knows the individual is not going to take his medication. She knows the individual is the reason for his criminality is his mental illness, but there's nothing that we can do. In addition in this bill, we do have an appropriation for what's what's known as a community-based correctional facility, a CBCF, that is specifically for people with mental illness issues. Currently, although a CBCF can be used for that purpose, because we don't have a Medicaid 1115 waiver, they can't get the individuals the proper treatment in a CBCF because that's considered lockdown confinement. So Medicaid stops. So they can't have a psychiatrist. They can't prescribe medications. They can't do what's really needed for an individual with mental illness. So we are in this bill creating a CBCF specifically for mental illness, one location in the state of Ohio where judges can send that individual and they are able to get the specialized treatment that the 1115 Medicaid waiver that now Ohio is applying for will be able to be used to get them the treatment that they need. Can I follow up?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, representatives, for your testimony. And Web Williams, you may have answered my question already, but in your last statement, but as far as the civil commitment part, you have to have a pending criminal case, correct? Meaning in terms of civil commitment for probate court, and we talked about probate court before your testimony, this does not have any impact on any of the civil orders for probate court. You have to have a pending criminal case for any of these changes to apply. Is that correct? through the chair to the member for the portion that increases the opportunity for civil confinement as these factors, yes. That's the goal. That's what it said in the bill, and we're willing to negotiate that. The way that it currently is written, I think I have to amend it because it says you have to have a pending criminal case. But in theory, if you are found incompetent, non-restorable by state statute, the case has to be dismissed. So technically the case wouldn't be pending anymore, and I kind of caught that just a few days ago. So what we're looking at doing is drafting an amendment that talks about how often you've been found to be incompetent, non-restorable. So if an individual has been previously found incompetent, non-restorable within the last 48 months, and you've been found incompetent, restorable a second time, that should be a factor that could put you in a civil confinement. That indicates that the person is committing criminal conduct, and the reason is because they are incompetent. So the answer under current law is put them back on the street. Put them back on the street. And our judges and our prosecutors' hands are tied. I've sat through these hearings. I've had competency hearings. I've had civil confinement hearings where I had a client who had a felony offense. He was found incompetent, restorable. His restoration period expired. Case had to be dismissed. The court moved to retain jurisdiction. At my job, I had to argue what the facts were. The statute said he had to be moderately learning disabled. and the testimony from the expert was that he was mildly. So he technically couldn't be confined. So he committed a felony. There wasn't a debate about whether or not he committed it. It was that we couldn't hold him accountable because he had intellectual disability. So he was incompetent, but not incompetent enough to go into civil confinement. So there's a lot of gaps in the law that we're trying to fix here to make sure that we provide for the safety and security of the community. And we're not trying to just put more people in civil confinement. We're only looking at those individuals that continuously commit crimes.

Good morning. Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearingen, Ranking Member Sennenberg, and members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on Sub-Bill SB 174. My name is Elizabeth McNeese, the Ohio Chair of National Parents Organization. I have long believed that Ohio does need reform. We really do. And I started advocating at the State House back in 2021. I'm a very proud mother and stepmother to six children and a brand-new grandbaby. But for the record, I'm not here with any personal vendetta. I do not have a horror story from family courts. I did go through family courts. My children are now grown, and they've benefited from equal shared parenting. So I'm not here because I'm trying to get revenge or I have a bad story. I'm here because I've seen people I love go through the system. And what I originally thought was just high-conflict parents who can't get along really became obvious that it's really the way our laws are written and that they encourage conflict and that we need serious reform. So I'm not here to oppose reform. I'm just saying Senate Bill 174 is not the reform that is promised and it's not the reform that Ohioans need. I do want to acknowledge the efforts of Representative Williams and the attempts made to try and make the bill palatable, but it's still not going to bring those much-needed changes and reforms. And considering that the courts have managed to block all our efforts for reform for the last 25 years, this might be our only shot for a while. So we really have to get it right. First, it is important to note that SB 174 was written and lobbied for by sitting Ohio judges in the Ohio Judicial Conference. I'm pointing this out because most Ohioans do not believe that the legislature should be allowing the judiciary to dictate legislation like that. And I'm personally shocked at the amount of attention and priority that this bill has received. Regarding the language of SB 174, sponsors and proponents spent a lot of their time presenting current statutes as new and major reforms. You were told that this bill will encourage parents to work together, and parents will be allowed to come up with a plan of their own, that courts won't be able to make orders based on a parent's gender, and emphasizes that parent-child relationships are fundamental. And that all sounds awesome if you didn't know that that's already current law, and it's been that way for decades. We've had gender non-discrimination clauses establishing that parents are on equal footing since the 1800s. Over half a century ago we established the best interest of the child standard. In the early 90s we established shared parenting which did encourage and allow parents to submit a joint plan that they agree on. We've already had that. Then in 1998 after those policies failed to make a difference Ohio established a more robust policy statement that parent relationships are fundamental and should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child best interest that the children should have frequent and continued contact with both parents and that parents should share in the responsibilities of raising their children In short, all the hype about SB 174 has been on the book for decades, so what's really going on here? If we're going to take an honest approach to reform, we really need to listen to Ohio families more than the professionals who make a living in the current failing system. Ohio families have reported serious issues that need to be addressed. a system that rewards conflict and incentivizes parents to fight, to win, litigation that drags on for years, costs that bankrupt families, inherent biases, vague statutes that are interpreted inconsistently across the state, poorly written statutes that are confusing to parents, and a lot of parents are forced to go pro se because they can't afford an attorney, the need for clear protection of our fundamental rights, and an entire industry that capitalizes from all of these problems. We did poll Ohioans in 2018 and again recently in December 2025. 96% of Ohioans believe children have a right to spend equal time with both parents. 90% of Ohioans believe parents should have equal rights. 87% of Ohioans support a change in law that establishes a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting. 83% of Ohioans believe parents, not a judge, should be trusted with deciding what's best for our children. and 79% of Ohioans believe that courts should presume that parental agreements are in the best interest of children. But instead of listening to Ohio's families, SB 174 maintains the current framework and protects the court's discretion above all else. It's good that complete discretion was removed from the bill, but the court's broad discretion to decide what's best is still completely intact, and that's a huge problem. Without explicit presumptions to guide courts, they will continue to apply their own ideas and opinions on what they think is best for our children. The vague and subjective best interest of the child standard is the elephant in the room that no one wants to address. By failing to acknowledge the flaws of those statutes, courts will continue to determine what is best for a child from their own perspective and worldviews, and their broad discretion will shield them. The bias reported by families is real, and it's even been acknowledged by the Ohio Judicial Conference in the past, before this very committee, and yet the bill does nothing to address it. The overly broad discretion afforded to family courts is the central problem. Yet the bill doubles down on their discretion that grants them unlimited and subjective best interest factors and allows courts to order fit parents to comply with any provision they feel is best for all children in all cases. Even the new changes in the sub-bill in regards to maximizing time and special weight are ultimately left up to each court to interpret. it. These aren't guardrails, they're blank checks. SB 174 doesn't actually create an equal starting point, which they state is the goal, so why not just put it in there? But please understand that under current law, courts can already order equal time if they think it's best, and they're not doing it. So why would we expect them to change if they don't have to? In the bill, the most substantive change to current law is the mandate that every separating couple and parent and custody court, so that includes juvenile, even parents who aren't in conflict, they have to submit a very detailed court-dictated plan for how the child is going to be raised, and parents must gain the court's approval over each and every detail. This is not meaningful or positive reform Not every family needs a very detailed court plan Why are we doing this What is the state interest in mandating that all parents obtain the court approval about how they want to raise their child Essentially, SB 174 is structured in a way that allows the courts to continue the status quo with the advantage of positioning themselves as the superior guardians of our children. Ohio judges are attempting here to rewrite laws and usurp parental rights altogether, appointing themselves as the sole and final authority in deciding what is best for Ohio's children, even when both parents are fit and even when parents are in agreement with one another. Sub-bill, SB 174 imposes more mandates on parents and grants more authorities to courts. And the rest is rhetoric. It's not substance. SB 174 is the opposite of meaningful reform. It will increase litigation, costs, and family conflict. I'll close by stating that many of the problems in SB 174 could be resolved by establishing rebuttable presumptions. I know we've talked about that a lot already today. Presumptions aren't a bad word. I mean, we have the presumption of innocence for a reason. It's not meant to protect the guilty. It's meant to ensure due process and protect the innocent. So the idea from proponents and sponsors being averse to the idea of a presumption, I don't understand. And there are other states who are doing it, and they're having good success. So I don't think we should shy away from that. And I think that would solve a lot of the problems, because it would establish, truly, truly establish, that parents do have rights, that courts can't just replace parents' judgment for their own. Affording equal parenting and parenting time, absent findings of harm, and a guarantee that parental rights are honored by presuming parents are fit. We talked about that, too. And capable of determining what's best for their children, absent evidence to the contrary, of course. At the very least, if sponsors believe that this legislation should be the model, then amend the bill to include requirements for the courts to track the outcomes of these cases with measurable data to track their performance and to inform the legislature early if these changes are or are not helpful. Ohioans at least deserve that. So I strongly urge you to table this bill. It still needs a lot of work. And work with the regular people on drafting legislation because the issues that families are facing are not being addressed in this bill. I'll answer any questions if you have any.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here today and for your advocacy and testimony. Without a plan, what is the alternative to a parenting plan, whether it's divorce, disillusion? what is your alternative? If there's not a plan that some third party, if not a court, who's going to enforce that and judge that? Thank you. Sure. Through the chair to the representative. That's a really good question, actually. So the establishment of these parenting plans is an extension, an expansion, if you will, of what the court is already doing. So parents, in a dissolution, they already have to attach a separation agreement. But they don't have to provide extensive detail that include everyday parenting decisions. So the parenting plans that they're establishing here are highly, highly detailed. And I think that they actually toe the line, if not cross it, over infringing on parents' constitutional rights to make parenting decisions for their children. Current law requires, even with shared parenting, if parents are submitting a joint shared parenting plan, And they also have to address the issue of residential custody parenting time and child support So those are three things that parents already have to do and that not the issue The issue is they are creating these very detailed lengthy parenting plans that parents have to submit and get court approval over And that's just one more thing for parents to fight about. I mean, obviously there's two categories of families. There's those who are in conflict and those who are not. Everyone has to do this, though. So if you're a couple who's separating and under today's current law you submit a separation agreement, but you don't have to get really detailed with it, and the court can approve it or not, but they can't replace it with their own ideas. They can't impose any provision on you that they want to impose, which is what this bill allows them to do. They're very limited on what they can do and what they're allowed to manage in families. And this bill expands that to basically give them a blank check to impose anything that they want to impose on a family through these parenting plans. And parents have to get the court's approval before they can do that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony as well. So I guess if I'm understanding you correctly, are you in favor? because this bill has 26 factors that it lays out as far as what's being considered by judges. I guess, are you saying that we should put more weight on parents and obviously what their priorities ought to be as far as when they're negotiating? This should be through the parents and less on the factors that are laid out. So is that ultimately your testimony here today? I want to get a full understanding of what you're going for. Sure. Through the chair. Thank you for that question. it's actually important to note that there's two different lists that the courts have to go through. There's the best interest of the child factors, and that list has been expanded, but they've already had the ability to consider anything they find relevant because the way the language is right now is when considering the best interest of the child, the court shall consider these factors, but not limited to. So they've always been allowed to consider additional things. But the new language on the best interest does expand more things for the court to consider, but it also says and any other factors. So they're still allowed to consider anything they want to, but it's very clear that they can consider anything they want to consider relevant. In all cases, too, this is not, again, this is not in cases just where they have to work through a messy split up and they have to just kind of make hard decisions. I mean, this is all family, so even parents who are not in conflict are going to be subject to the court's consideration of anything they want to consider. Again, I think that is also a blank check because they can consider anything they want to. The other list is the criteria required for parenting plans. And as I kind of just mentioned a minute ago, under current law, they do have to choose a residential and custodial parent. That's what parents fight over, by the way. They have to figure out a parenting time schedule. That's where every county is doing something different. And then they have to handle child support. There's a lot of work that we can do on the child support side, so I won't go there. But it's limited to that. So this bill expands it to they have to create a parenting plan that is developmentally appropriate, for instance. Well, that's not defined, and that's a little scary. So I have a child who is developmentally disabled. And when I split from my husband, we did go through 50-50. But if this bill were to pass and would have been around back then, the court would have been able to come in and decide what is developmentally appropriate for my son without having ever met my son. And the court, you know, appointed specialists and guardian ad litems and investigators, most of them are attorneys. They're not child development specialists anyway. So even if the court says, I know, I don't understand your child needs, but the guardian Well, they're attorneys. They don't really know my child's developmental needs. But that's just one example. I think it's government overreach, and it's beyond what they're currently doing.

Thank you, Chair. Members of the committee. Think of family law as a bridge from one side of divorce to the other. We understand that it's in everyone's best interest.

I want to make sure we can hear you. Okay. Think of family law as a bridge from one side of divorce to the other, and we understand that it's in everyone's best interest for everyone to make it across the bridge in a healthy and efficient manner. But the bridge is dilapidated, and too many people, children and parents alike, are falling through the cracks. So every so often we gather a group of experts to fix the bridge. The problem is these experts are in a very profitable ferry business, and they understand that if they fix the bridge, there will be much less demand for the ferry. So their solution is never to fix the structure of the bridge, but to simply slap a new coat of paint on it. Senate Bill 174 is the newest coat of paint on the dilapidated bridge that is family law. This bill is not revolutionary or modern. And the experts behind Senate Bill 174 are selling you current law. They are selling you recycled solutions with a track record of failure. And now they're trying to sell you the idea that special weight equals a presumption. It does not. My written testimony spells all this out, but I want to draw attention to how the bill handles temporary orders. The establishment of temporary orders is critical because in many cases, this is the exact point where parental rights are won or lost. When a judge issues an unfairly restrictive temporary order at the start of a case, it weaponizes the length of the litigation and undermines cooperation. The parent receiving the highly favorable order knows that the longer it stays temporary, the more likely it becomes permanent. Therefore, they have little incentive to mediate or engage in any constructive cooperative process to create a parenting plan. During previous testimony, you were told this bill prohibits course from considering temporary orders when defining or when determining final orders. That is objectively incorrect. As introduced, the bill did contain a provision prohibiting consideration of temporary orders, but its removal during the amendment process signals clear legislative intent for this practice to continue. The explanation given that temporary orders may only be considered in terms of compliance is not supported by the contents of the bill. and yet that talking point was still pushed front and center. Because the information given to you was so unequivocally wrong, you need to question the veracity of everything you've been sold. Understand that the addition of special weight is useless as it is already integrated into current law. Understand that the conceptual application of the best interest factors under this bill is identical to current law. Understand that interviewing the child is already permitted under current law but what was not highlighted by this bill is that the record of that interview is now sealed and therefore unappealable Understand that the starting point of equal parenting is never explicitly stated in this bill requiring a combination of interpretations that current law fails to deliver. Understand that previous attempts at more appropriate language had no impact on Ohio's parent sidelining culture. and lastly, understand that the new alternative dispute resolutions simply create a privatized market designed to bleed families of resources. Senate Bill 174 is not meant to be true reform, but to insulate the family law industry from the threat posed by the equal parenting movement. Pushed by industry insiders, the only supporting evidence for their claims is, trust me, I'm an expert. These experts are the stewards of the current parent sidelining culture, having done nothing while an entire generation aged out of childhood. Now they ask you to put even more faith in the actors and processes that created and perpetuated Ohio's parent sidelining culture, relying on the self-correction of a system that has proven it will not self-correct. Please vote no on Senate Bill 174.

Thank you, Chair. And Anthony, thanks for your time today and your advocacy being here. I know we've met many times, and you told me your case, which is, I believe, unfortunate as far as your rights as a parent. But you mentioned dismantling the whole system. Is that really a reality? and not that we don't need reform, but I guess I'm just a little bit, how do we dismantle the whole system? And I'm a little confused by, again, I'm sympathetic, but I also don't know what the other alternatives would be, as you mentioned, dismantling the system. So thanks. Through the chair to the representative. Yes, the solution would be a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting, like they've done in Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Mississippi. As it was mentioned earlier, the sponsors of this bill have acknowledged that this is not being tried anywhere else as far as they know. The reason is because it's already been tried in Ohio. We established the best interest factors over 50 years ago. We overhauled them in 1991. We instituted a state policy in 1998. We went through cosmetic changes to the language in 1991, 2001, 2005, 2007. We've done all these things that this bill is going to do again. And the outcome of that was not a change in the disparate outcomes of family court cases. It was an entrenchment of the status quo. So the only way that you get around that entrenchment of status quo is by establishing a rebuttable presumption up front of equal parenting that can be overturned by showing harm to the child. That keeps parental rights front and center. It keeps the child's right to the parent being involved in their life front and center. And it keeps the state out of situations that it does not need to be involved in.

um chairman thomas vice chair and chair swearingen ranking member senenberg uh members of the ohio House Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on substitute Senate Bill 174. I'd like to start off by recognizing the efforts of Representative Williams and the committee for removing some of the most troubling provisions from the Senate passed bill and making several noticeable improvements. It is, on these accounts, a probably better bill. I can tell you that whenever I've had a low-grade fever, it's felt better than having a 104-degree fever. But, you know, I would prefer to have neither one. There are several things. There are just too many things that need to be improved on this bill for it, in my opinion, to pass in its form. There are a lot of improvements that need to be made. Ranking member Sendenberg asked the question, how would you dismantle the system? Well, if the system is designed to determine the best interests of the child, it has to be structured to be in the best interests of the child, and that it has to be structured in a way that's going to have a solution that does not harm the child. And the easiest way to harm the child is to incentivize the parents to fight. I know that the proponents were asked a question of why did it take so long? And they had mentioned things like the research to practice a lag. It sounded as if these people were working tirelessly in a lab. Every once in a while, someone would slide food under the door. And the answer is that the judicial system, the family law system,

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. How does that sound? Okay. Oh, it's well. Okay. Dear members of the committee, I'm Frank Glandorf, a parent and resident of Hamilton County, asking two amendments to Senate Bill 174 regarding custody defaults. Since 2018, I've assisted as an analyst for the National Parents Organization's Ohio Parenting Time Report. By statute, each county court is required to have a written local rule detailing default child custody arrangements. The Parenting Time Report uses these local rules and focuses on ordinary parenting time like non-holiday vacations, school-aged children and parents living in proximity to each other. In 2018, 64 of Ohio's 88 counties received the lowest grade because they only had one overnight parenting time per two-week period. Four counties received the highest grade because of substantially equal parenting time. In addition, seven counties used multiple schedules. And then five years later, the situation had changed. only 45 counties received the lowest grade, a reduction of 20. Eight counties received the highest grade, an increase of four, and 17 counties used multiple schedules, an increase of 10. It's important to note that not a single county has reduced the amount of parenting time in their schedules. These custody default rules are eliminated in SB 174. In a verbal sponsor testimony for SB 174, Senator Gaviron stated, 50-50 really is the starting point for this. As a matter of fact, if the court deviates from substantially equal parenting time, they have to have written findings of fact to support that result. It cannot be appealed. It does away with standard court schedules of every other Wednesday night and every other weekend. The bill does lift the mandate for custody default rules, but does not actually state 50-50 as the starting point. It's an excellent idea, though. When parents agree, Section 3109.046 merely states, court shall give special weight to a joint parenting plan filed by the parents. If the parents don't agree, there's the following Section 3109.047. if the parents or legal custodians file one or more parenting plans the court shall approve a plan it finds to be in the best interest of the child These improvements are a welcome step forward but the bill still falls short You need a clear, predictable baseline for Ohio's families. So here's two amendments I would like to see adopted. Incorporate the Gaviron's 50-50 starting point. The committee should integrate the equal language providing a clear rebuttable presumption of 50-50 parenting time when both parents are fit and it is in the best interest of the child the shifts the custody determinations away from an adversarial winner-take-all the second amendment would be to mandate age-appropriate default custody schedules to eliminate the wide disparity in how local rules are handled. Every county should adopt a default custody schedule. This framework can be used by simply using the models established by the Supreme Court document planning for parenting time Ohio's guide for parents living apart so these Supreme Court approved templates give families an immediate equitable baseline it allows parents who agree on co-parenting to bypass costly legal drafting and giving courts a balanced evidence-based starting point when parents cannot agree thank you for your consideration mr. Glansdorf thank you

Chairman Thomas, vice chair. ranking members in committee. My name is Nicole Mill and I'm here from Lorain, Ohio for the third time in opposition of SB 174 as currently written. I first want to acknowledge and thank the sponsors for the amendments that appear to address some of the concerns previously raised by parents, advocates, survivors, and others. The inclusion of domestic violence consideration, the touch on parental rights, language, and the removal of complete discretion are important improvements. And I am grateful for those concerns, that those concerns were recognized, and it is a step in the right direction. However, the largest issue facing Ohio family courts remains untouched. The lack of accountability surrounding immunity, temporary orders, guardian ad litem, due process, protections, and court-appointed actors operating with little or no meaningful oversight. You cannot reform family court or modernize it while leaving the enforcement mechanisms unchanged. Across Ohio, families are raising concerns about process. They're raising concerns about the temporary orders functioning as long-term custody determinations, about financial devastation caused by prolonged litigation, and about decisions that profoundly affect parent-child relationships without the protections normally required when fundamental parental rights are at stake. One of the most concerning issues is the continued misuse of temporary custody mechanisms under Civil Rule 75N Civil Rule 75N was designed to provide temporary stability while parties move towards a full hearing and final adjudication Likewise, Civil Rule 53D4E2 permits interim relief, but specifically provided that interim orders orders shall not extend beyond 28 days unless extended for good cause shown. The purpose of those mechanisms are clear. Temporary orders are supposed to be temporary. Yet many Ohio families are exercising temporary orders that remain in effect for months or even years while substantially affecting custody, parenting time, financial obligations, and parent-child relationships, sometimes even post-decree. In my case, after emergency custody transfer was granted through the temporary order, I requested findings of facts and conclusions of law so the basis of the decision could be properly reviewed. That request was denied because the order was considered temporary. The order has now remained in effect for approximately 783 days. When a temporary order remains in place for years, it no longer functions as a short-term measure. It becomes a de facto final custody determination. If an order is powerful enough to remove a child from a parent, restrict parental rights, impose supervised visitation, or fundamentally alter a whole family for years, then parents should absolutely have the right to understand the factual and legal basis for that decision. A temporary label should not be used to avoid transparency, a pallet review, or constitutional due process protections while the effects of the order become functionally permanent in a child's life. Another serious concern is the lack of accountability surrounding guardian ad litems. In my case, guardian ad litems' fees were enforced through Child Support Enforcement Agency as though they were child support obligations. Child support enforcement exists to support children, not to collect court-generated civil debt. Meanwhile, families face mounting legal costs and little oversight of GAL billing, prolonged involvement, or financial transparency. Without oversight, the current structure creates an appearance of a system where prolonged litigation financially benefits multiple court-connected participants while families become financially devastated attempting to maintain relationships with their children. A process that allows accountability to be postponed for years is a process that allows accountability to be avoided. And the cost is ultimately paid by families through financial hardship, emotional trauma, psychological stress, and damage to parent-child relationships that can never be recovered. Ohio families are not asking for perfection. We're asking for transparency, accountability, measurable outcomes, and the same level of oversight that exists in nearly every other government system entrusted with the welfare of children. If SB 174 is truly intended to modernize Ohio's family courts, it must ensure accountability, transparency, and due process for the families it serves. No parent should lose 783 days with their child under a temporary order. Children deserve stability, parents deserve due process, and Ohio families deserve a system where the rules apply equally to everyone with the least amount of government interference. I appreciate the improvements made to this bill, but until those protections are included, I respectfully urge the committee to vote no on SB 174 as currently written.

Thank you.

Chairperson, vice chair, ranking member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on substitute Senate Bill 174. My name is Stephanie Hignite. I came down here from Ann Arbor, Michigan, because I have a custody case in Ohio. I am a Marine veteran who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I'm also a single adoptive parent whose constitutional right to custody was judicially diminished without claims of abuse, neglect, dependency, or abandonment. Anyone in the state of Ohio can invoke the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and claim a fit parent contractually relinquished partial custody of their children through words and actions. When I refused to share custody of my adopted children with my ex-girlfriend after their adoption, she did just that. The trial court recently awarded her approximately 50% parenting time, designated her a co-parent to my children, and granted a provision that any unnamed family member can exercise her parenting time if she cannot. She's also not required to financially support them, and I have to provide transportation to the visits over an hour from our home in Ohio. She's not a biological or a legal relative to my children, nor was she prior to the adoption. I am the only adoptive parent. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision despite the absence of any written custody agreement, a waiver of parental rights, a signed shared custody contract, and my express refusal to enter into an agreement. My experience demonstrates why the substitute bill's new parental unsuitability provision requires substantial amendment before enactment. Substitute Senate Bill 174 creates a new statutory basis for finding a parent unsuitable when a court determines that the parent contractually relinquished custody of the child. However, the bill does not define contractually relinquished custody. It does not require written agreement and it does not require a knowing and voluntary waiver of a constitutional right and does not establish safeguards against implied or inferred relinquishment. If substitute SB 174 becomes law without clarification, it risks codifying the very type of judicial inference that allowed a constitutional parental right to be diminished without a signed agreement or expressed waiver. The amendments I'm requesting are as follows. One, increase the burden of proof. Replace the current preponderance of the evidence standard with clear and convincing evidence. The loss or diminishment of fundamental parental rights should not be decided under the same standard used for ordinary civil disputes. Preserve the constitutional presumption favoring parents. Add language stating a parent shall be presumed suitable unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence This codifies longstanding constitutional protections recognized by Ohio and federal courts Define contractually relinquished custody. Amend section 3109.0416B to provide that contractual relinquishment may only occur through written instruments signed by the parent that expressly identifies the custodial rights being transferred. Require a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. Because parental rights are fundamental constitutional rights protected by the 14th Amendment, the statute should require proof that any relinquishment was knowingly, voluntary, voluntarily, and intelligently executed. A parent should never lose superior custody rights through implication, assumption, or judicial interpretation of conduct. Require definite contract terms. The statute should provide that no agreement constitutes relinquishment unless it specifically identifies the rights being transferred, the duration of the transfer, decision-making authority, parenting time provisions, conditions for modification, and conditions for termination. The court should not be permitted to find relinquishment when the alleged agreement contains no definite terms. Prohibit implied custody agreements. amend section 3109.0416 to state a finding of contractual relinquishment shall not be based upon an implied contract, implied in fact contract, equitable theory, estoppel theory, or course of conduct. Only an express written agreement should support a finding that a parent contractually relinquish custody. Enact safeguards for parents and children when litigation involves a non-parent, non-relative. It was not lost on the U.S. Supreme Court that Granville spent an extremely large amount of money litigating to protect her parental rights. SCOTUS recognized that allowing an independent 30-party interest in a child can place a substantial burden on the traditional parent-child relationship. Other states have enacted safeguards to protect parents and children from litigation that does not involve an allegation of abuse and neglect by narrowing who has standing. Before a state will accept a motion from a non-parent, they require that non-parents file sworn affidavits that they have had exclusive care, custody, and control of the child for a specific time period immediately prior to filing and submit evidence before a court will agree to hear a case. I'm referencing Texas Family Code Section 102.003A9 and Section 1002.0031. I have spent over $100,000 litigating for the custody of my children since 2021, and we are still actively involved in litigation. I have no retirement accounts left. I have a home equity loan now. I have tens of thousands in credit card debt, and I still owe my trial court attorneys over $30,000. Ohio juvenile courts should implement a system that requires a similar protection, identifying standing, requiring sworn testimony and presentation of evidence. My children have never been out of my care for over two days at a time, more than four days out of a whole month. I've never left them with anyone. This was simply an ex-girlfriend who wanted to have time with my children, and so she invoked the jurisdiction of the juvenile court when I told her that I was moving to Michigan. Substitute Senate Bill 174 attempts to provide guidance in custody disputes involving non-parents. However, without these amendments, the bill will create a statutory pathway by which parents may lose custody rights through implication rather than consent. Ohio parents deserve clear standards written agreements heightened constitutional protections and due process safeguards before court may conclude that custody rights have been relinquished I respectfully urge the committee to adopt these amendments before advancing the bill and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify in opposition of the current version of Senate Bill 174. If there are any questions, I welcome them.

Thank you.

Good morning. To the chair and members of the Judiciary Committee, Thank you for listening to testimony today. My name is Matt Gardner, and I'm a parent in Ohio. Despite the best efforts of representatives to try and approve this bill, I oppose Senate Bill 174. Frankly, I'm amazed that I need to take time off work today to talk about equal shared parenting. In the year 2026, Ohio somehow still does not have a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting. Not only is it the obvious solution, but polling shows that 87% of Ohioans support a change in law to establish a presumption of equal shared parenting. 87%. Like, is there anything else that 87% of Ohioans agree on? During the time that Ohio has been failing to reform courts, I believe six states have already established a presumption of equal shared parenting in the last few years. SB 174 is obviously a counter bill to the public's efforts to establish equal shared parity. SB 174 is not a child-centered bill. The great basketball coach John Wooden has a famous quote, never mistake activity for achievement. Despite the best efforts to improve this bill, that's exactly what Senate Bill 174 does. It maintains the status quo under the veil of well-meaning language that lack any teeth. Frankly, it's both bizarre and frightening that the bill proponents have been fighting against explicitly stating that there is a presumption that parents are fit. The bill sponsors have made a lot of claims about the bill that unfortunately do not hold water. I'd love to be wrong about this, but please ask the bill sponsors to direct you to the page and line number in the bill to support their claims. They claim that this bill establishes 50-50 as the starting point. I asked Senator Gavron where that is located in the bill. Her office responded that she meant that this bill encourages parents to come up with a parenting plan. That's obviously not 50-50 starting point, and currently parents can come up with a parenting plan that can be rejected by a judge. Senator Gavron also claimed that this bill does away with those standard court schedules of every Wednesday night and every other weekend and starts at 50-50. I don't see that in the bill. If it's there, please point that out. Counties can continue to operate through local standing schedules since substantial and meaningful time is undefined. This bill does not change the status quo. Current law already allows parents to jointly file a parenting plan that a judge may reject. Current law already utilized, I believe, 10 best interest factors. Do committee members understand how easily courts can utilize best interest factors to justify a decision? Factors are a menu for judges to choose which factor most easily supports their preferred parenting plan. It's as simple as saying most of the best interest factors do not favor either parent However since mother works 40 hours in a week and father works only 32 hours a week mother you going to be designated as non parent and you going to get every other weekend Back in 2012 I don know if you guys are familiar with this, the Supreme Court of Ohio created a document. I think it was obviously more recent than the 20-year-old task force that was used to develop Cinnabelle 174. In this document, it states, preserving a healthy and ongoing relationship between children after divorce or separation is of the greatest importance. That sounds great. It specifically states that in every other weekend schedule is appropriate only when a child cannot spend more equal time with the parents due to work schedule, geography, or the child is not bonded with both parents. That's obviously a fairly limited population of divorcing parents. However, that's been the standard across counties for years. Despite current law, domestic relation courts have already shown us what they prefer. In the 2023 Ohio Child Support Report, nine counties were surveyed to determine what percentage of their orders granted at least 90 overnights per year to each parent. So that's roughly 25% to each parent. Only 16% of those 500 cases met that threshold. Unless the bill establishes equal requirements and actual requirements, courts are going to continue to deprive children one half of their family. This bill's soft language will not create reform. There has to be a default starting point for child custody and parenting schedules. Not only does it make zero sense for that starting point to be anything but equal, but it is actively harming children by setting that starting point at such a lopsided schedule. in my written testimony i provided a list of standard parenting plans in your counties do you know how the children of your constituents are being treated i included the table that i spoke of before children in lake county are being treated better than most they get to see their parent each parent at least five nights in a two-week span but unfortunately children in madison county are not so lucky these children have one half of their families swept out of their lives except for just two overnights in a two-week span. Now listening to this, it sounds like Ohio does have presumptions. Unfortunately, those presumptions only apply to children of married parents. So children of married parents are presumed to have fit parents. Children of married parents are presumed to have access to those parents. Can you imagine how absurd it would be to have a judge review every married family so as to dictate that their children see only one parent every other weekend. So why are we treating children of divorce so unfairly? I want to echo on the point that some others have made about temporary orders. There is a huge issue with temporary orders being used to dictate final orders. When a temporary order is in place for 18 months while you wait for a judge to schedule hearings or to release an order, and then the final order references the temporary orders and uses that to establish the final parenting plan, the final order is basically predetermined just with the establishment of that temporary plan. Thank you for listening to my testimony, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to come and testify. Do you think portions of this bill create a rebuttable presumption when two fit parents agree to equal share parenting that the court must grant it unless they find that it's not in the best image of the child?

Follow up? Yes.

Through the chair and to the representatives, thank you for the question. Again, I'm not an attorney. I don't practice law. I'm just an Ohio parent. So what I understand that language to mean is that the judge has to approve that plan unless it's not in the child's best interest. The problem with that, as I see it, is the child's best interest factors are in the eyes of the beholder. And the judge in each county has already put out their standard parenting plan, which they think is in the child's best interest. So if Montgomery County has a standard parenting plan that children see one parent every other weekend and three hours on Wednesday night, that is what the county thinks is in the child's best interest by default. So parents come with an equal parenting plan. The judge can poke holes in that and find that it's not in the child's best interest because they've already telegraphed to everyone what that judge feels is a parenting plan that's in the best interest of children.

Oh, that's okay. Hi, Chairperson, Vice Chair, Ranking Members and Members of the Community. My name is Patsy Grant, and I'm from Holland, Ohio. I am here today as a mother, an advocate, and someone who has spent years trying to protect her children. My testimony is not based on politics. It's based on my lived experiences and what I believe to happen to my family through Ohio's child welfare and family court system and juvenile court. For years, I've attempted to protect my children from what I believe was an abusive environment. I followed court orders. I comply requirements placed upon me. I was repeatedly told the system I needed to stay away from My former spouse or to risk losing my children I Abide by those orders yet despite complying with everything I was asked to do I watched my children be placed with the very person I spent years trying to protect them from

My former spouse has a criminal history and spent years in prison. While he was incarcerated for interference with custody, I received custody of my children for 10 days. However, after his release, custody was ultimately returned to him. This was devastating for me as a mother because I had repeatedly expressed concerns regarding abuse, neglect, violence, and the safety of my children. Throughout this process, reports were made to Children's Services Lucas County regarding my children's welfare. I documented the injuries. I documented concerns about neglect. I documented concerns about living conditions. I raised concerns regarding safety and well-being of my children. I was informed that they were occasions when access to the home was refused during investigations. My children frequently suffered from head lice. I documented concerns regarding situations in sanitation and hygiene. I observed and documented conditions that I believed were unsafe and unhealthy for my children. I also received reports that the lack of running water at times and that the children were forced to use a bucket as a toilet. As a mother, it is impossible to describe the pain of believing your children are living in unsafe conditions while believing unable to protect them. One of the most painful aspects of my story involves my autistic son. Over the years, concerns were raised regarding his welfare and medical needs. I believe warning signs were missed. I believe concerns were not adequately addressed. My son eventually became critically ill in 2017. He spent two and a half months in the PICU, and since Dad had custody, he made sure that I was not aware that it happened or allowed to come and see him. Today, he is an adult who requires a liver transplant. I'm currently taking him back and forth to Cleveland Clinic. As his mother, I continue to carry the pain of wondering whether more could have been done sooner. I also experienced concerns regarding fairness and transparency with the legal process itself. During my case, I later learned of a personal relationship between my magistrate assigned to matters involving my family and my former spouse's attorney. Whether actual bias existed or not, learning of the relationship raised serious concerns from regarding fairness, impartiality, and public confidence in the judicial system. Parents involved in cases that determine the future of their children deserve complete transparency and confidence that decisions are being made without any appearance of favoritism or conflict. Another issue that has troubled me in my parental rights were terminated only to my youngest daughter. My parental rights to my other children were never terminated. I have struggled for years to understand how I could be considered fit enough to remain legal parent of my children while permanently losing my legal relationship with my youngest daughter Today my daughter is 16 years old I continue to worry about her welfare I continue to hope for opportunity to rebuild a relationship with her The termination of parental rights is often described in civil equivalent of the death penalty because it permanently severs the legal bond between a parent and a child. Unlike many decisions in our legal system, this is often no meaningful mechanism to revisit the decision even when circumstances change. That is why I'm asking this committee not to only consider Senate Bill 174, but to strengthen it. I respectfully request the following amendments. First, create a clear process for reinstatement of parental rights when a parent has remedied the issues that led to termination and reunification would be in the child's best interest. Also, to my knowledge, 22 states have allowed reinstatement of parental rights, a second pathway. Second, allow courts to review credible evidence of abuse, neglect, unsafe living conditions, domestic violence, criminal activity, or serious medical neglect, even after parental rights have been terminated. Third, require independent review when children are placed with individuals who have violent felon histories or documented histories of domestic violence. Fourth, require courts to hear directly from the children at the age of 14 and older regarding their placement, safety concerns, and wishes regarding family relationships. Fifth, accept greater transparency and accountability regarding investigations conducted child welfare agencies, including documentations or reports received, investigations, actions taken, and reason for case closure. Sixth, allow emergency review petitions when credible evidence suggests a child may currently be living in unsafe conditions. conditions. Seventh, strengthen the conflict of interest and disclosure requirements in juvenile and family court proceedings so family can have confidence that decisions are being made fairly and without appearance of improperly. Members of the committee, my purpose today is not simply to tell my story. My purpose is to ask Ohio to do better. Children deserve safety. children deserve stability parents deserve fairness and transparent proceedings and when evidence emerges that a child may still be at risk there should be a meaningful way ask a court to review the situation my children deserve better ohio deserves better how children deserve better i respectfully ask you to strengthen it and ensure that the children's safety accountability transparency, and family preservation remains at the Center of Ohio Law. And also I wanted to bring up where they kept saying when they took my kids that there was never child abuse on the kid's dad. I have a hospital report I found after I submitted it. I'm not sure if I submitted it or not, but my nine-year-old was abused by him. and they don't care to hear that in Lucas County, and they placed my kids with him. And he neglected their medical needs to an extent where my son has esophageal variances is autistic and homeless and afraid to come back to Lucas County because his dad has somebody that is out to kill him if he comes back because of the medical neglect that he did to him and he's the only one that can put him in jail but he has to come back to Lucas County to do it and he's afraid and while in school when your rights are terminated to one of your children and your other children go to the same school, everything that happens with your other kids, you can't go to any of that because Children's Services puts a no-contact order on your other daughter. So it severs your relationship, even though you have your rights to them, but you don't because I could go to jail. And in that process, he kept me from getting my kids. And on one of the Wednesdays at school, when I was supposed to pick my kids up, he had this huge thing that he had done at the school, which required the school to put a letter out that says that they're prohibiting from entering the campus due to an incident that happened on October 2017. So it doesn't just affect when your rights are terminated to one child. It affects you for all of them. And I just think that reinstatement of parental rights needs to be a second pathway in the state of Ohio. And thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. And Ms. Grant, thank you for your testimony today and for coming in. And I think you're our last witness. So I want to say to you as well as to some of the other witnesses that have already spoken, including Stephanie. and I made comments to Anthony Slauson before and I want to be very clear. I did not mean at all to sound unsympathetic to Anthony, to anybody who's testified because I realize there are these true horror stories that have happened with our domestic relations courts and whether it's Stephanie having to spend $100,000, I know Mr. Slauson has spent about the same amount in legal fees And your story is obviously $350,000 and I owe $150,000. Yeah, I mean, that's, again, I don't know all the facts and circumstances of each individual case, but just hearing that, it seems to me to be unconscionable, honestly. so having said that you know i i still will probably be probably be voting for this bill because it is um i believe still a step in the right direction to pass the senate with only two no votes and it's been generally agreed that the way that we've fixed it over here in the house is an improvement so i say that to say not that me or other members are not being sympathetic to your story and these other, like I say, really true horror stories that have happened in these cases. But, you know, you made those suggestions at the end, and hopefully that is something that in the future we can build upon. So I do thank you for your time today.

Is there any way that since it involves juvenile court that you can put in this for a second pathway for reinstatement of parental rights?

Well, without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the case, it's hard for me to comment, but I will say that we should have a further conversation about future changes that we can improve upon to make the system more fair.

Yeah. I don't know that it can be something that the bill is where it is procedurally now, but again, there's the opportunity for other future improvements in bills.

All right, thanks.