Ohio House Judiciary Committee - 3-11-2026

The House Judiciary Committee will now come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chairman Thomas? Here. Vice Chair Sorangen? Here. Ranking Member Sindenburg? Here. Representative Pickle Antonio? Here. Representative Calendar is excused. Representative Matthews? Here. Representative Mohamed? Here. Representative Odigosa? Here. Representative Volslager? Here. Representative Plummer? Here. Representative Stewart checked in. Representative Timms? Representative Williams? Here. We have a quorum present. We'll proceed as a full committee. Please review the minutes from the last committee meeting. Are there any objections to the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. As a reminder, if you'd like to film with audio or video, there's a form that you need to fill out before you do so, and then bring it to the chair, and we'll get it taken care of for you. I'd now like to call up House Bill 211 for its fourth hearing.

Thank you, Chair.

The amendment is in order and can be found on your iPads. Please, can you explain the amendment?

Great. Thank you for explaining. The question is, shall the motion to amend be agreed to? Hearing no objection, the motion is accepted. this concludes the hearing for House Bill 211.

211?

I'd now like to call up House Bill 528 for its second hearing. Please note this has multiple written-only testimonies on your iPads. And if I'm correct, we received no in-person testimony for House Bill 528.

Is there anybody here who wants to testify on House Bill 528? Seeing none, this concludes the second hearing for House Bill 528. Now I'd call up House Bill 459 for its second hearing. And first to provide proponent testimony is Dave Markham. Welcome to committee.

Thank you. Mr. Markham, thank you for your testimony. I'd like to offer my condolences to you and your family for these tragic events. Are there any questions? Representative Williams with a question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'd like to thank the chair and the committee for letting me testify here today. On August 14, 2011, Caitlin Markham was reported missing by her then-fiancé, John Carter. Caitlin was last seen at her home in Fairfield, Ohio, about a mile and a half from my home. Our community came together and began searching for her. We crawled under buildings. We climbed down into ditches. And then collectively and individually, we searched for her. through woods and countryside. Until Texas EquiSearch came, we were a ragtag group, but they organized us, and we worked systematically from that point forward. Knowing she was gone and maybe needing help changed the way we spent our time and how we looked at things, including each other. A neighbor's shed was now a potential hiding place for a hostage or a body. A discarded shoe along the road was potentially a clue where she might be. She could not have just vanished But she had indeed vanished It made us feel helpless and vulnerable What was so different about Caitlin than my daughter Nothing, really, except my daughter was there and Caitlin was not. It took more than a year to find her remains, and all her remains were never recovered. All the while, John Carter knew where Caitlin was because he had moved her body. He took her from her home and hid her to hide what he had done. She was dead, and there was no bringing her back, so he sought to save himself from facing up to whatever his part had been in her death. But no matter what his part was in her death, hiding her body was a purposeful act that devastated her family, her friends, and her community. Her family would have been horrified to learn she died, no matter how she died. But they could have started the natural grieving process. We attend to our debt. We honor them, and we do for them what we can one last time on this earth. But when a person just disappears, that process cannot start. Instead, we are left in terror. Do they need us? Are they in trouble? How can we find them? Most people will agree that the loss of a child is an unimaginable horror of its own. It is. I have lost a child, but I can tell you that I cannot imagine having just been told she's missing and left to imagine how and why for months into years. And that is an unimaginable horror. And that is what Caitlin's family experienced because John Carter chose to hide what he had done and hide her body and her death. We as a society have acknowledged that some crimes are so heinous that there should be no statute of limitations on the ability to prosecute those that engage in those crimes. What was done to Caitlin Markham and her family by John Carter hiding her body and covering up her death was heinous. No one should be able to do such a horrific act and benefit from it without recourse. Hiding Caitlin's body shielded John Carter from a proper investigation into her death, and the passage of time shielded him from being held accountable for hiding her. Caitlin's law, House Bill 459, will protect other families from what happened to Caitlin's family. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. So my name is Captain Sean Malloy. On behalf of the Fairfield County Sheriff's Office and Alex Lay, we appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of strengthening Ohio's voyeurism walls. I am here today because I believe Ohio must treat voyeurism as a serious crime that it is, and that means ensuring that voyeurism is classified as a felony offense in every case so the suspects can properly held accountable for their actions Voyeurism is not a harmless act It is not simply a lapse in judgment or a minor invasion of privacy Voyeurism is an intentional act that violates a person's dignity, security, and basic right to privacy. It occurs when someone secretly watches, photographs, or records another person in a situation where they have reasonable expectation of privacy like bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, bedrooms, or other private spaces. These places where people should feel comfortably safe. When someone secretly invades a privacy, the damage goes far beyond the moment the crime occurs. For victims, the impact can be profound. Victims often describe feelings of humiliation, fear, anxiety, and loss of control. They may feel unsafe in spaces that should normally be routine parts of everyday life. There are some things as simple as using a restroom or changing clothes can become a source of anxiety because of trust that those spaces are private and has been broken. Unfortunately, this is not a theatrical issue. Our office has seen firsthand how serious these crimes can be. On October 14, 2024, our office conducted an investigation at Tolgate Elementary involving a janitor who had secretly placed a camera inside a box in order to record inside the teacher's restroom. This was a deliberate act designed to secretly capture private moments in a place where teachers had every reason to believe they were safe. During the investigation, our investigators were able to obtain a search warrant for the suspect's phone. When that device was examined, investigators discovered that the suspect had recorded numerous victims. In total, 18 victims, teachers at the school, were identified on this device. Eighteen individuals who simply went to work expecting privacy, safety, only to learn that most of their private moments had been secretly recorded. However, despite the seriousness of the conduct and the number of victims involved due to how the law is currently written, the suspect will only be charged with a misdemeanor. That outcome does not reflect the seriousness of the crime or the harm that was caused to the victims. Cases like this demonstrate exactly how voyeurism must be taken seriously under the law. The harm to victims is not despair simply because the crime occurred in the private room or because the offender did not physically touch someone. The violation of privacy itself is significant and long-lasting. In today's world, the potential harm is even greater because of technology. Hidden cameras are smaller, they're cheaper, and easier to conceal than ever before. Smartphones and digital storage allow offenders to collect storage images or videos. in some cases, distribute them online where victims lose all control over who sees them. Because of the seriousness of these harms, voyeurism should never be treated as a minor offense. It's a deliberate act that requires planning, intent, and conscious decision to invade someone else's privacy. When the law treats voyeurism as a misdemeanor in certain circumstances, it limits the ability of the justice system to fully hold suspects accountable for the harm they have caused. This is why the law needs to be changed. Voyeurism should be classified as a felony offense in every case. Doing so would recognize the seriousness of the conduct and ensure that offenders face consequences that reflect the harm inflicted on victims. Changing the law would also give law enforcement and prosecutors stronger tools to pursue these cases while sending a clear message that Ohio takes violations of personal privacy seriously. At its core, the issue is about protecting the basic dignity and safety of Ohioans. Every person should have the right to expect privacy in spaces where they're most vulnerable. No teacher should have to worry about being secretly recorded at work. No employee should fear that hidden camera may be watching them in a restroom or locker room. And no victim should feel the law that treats their violation as a minor offense. Strengthening Ohio's voyeurism laws and making the offense a felony in every case will help ensure that suspects are held accountable, victims are protected, and the right to privacy is respected. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman. Please excuse me if I'm out of breath. I just finished giving testimony elsewhere and it's a busy day, but thank you, Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearengen, Ranking Member Sittenberg and distinguished members of the Ohio House Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present sponsored testimony on House Bill 693, the Affirming Families First Act. The heart of this bill is found in Section 2151.023, which states, In no event shall recognizing or affirming a minor child's sex be considered any of the following, abuse, neglect, or risk thereof, as contrary to the best interest of the child, as creating an unsafe environment for the child. And it states in 3129.14 that it is the public policy of this state that a parent has the fundamental right to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent's minor child, including the right to affirm the minor child's sex. In other words, it is not unlawful to raise your son as a boy or your daughter as a girl. Why is this necessary? Really, this is common sense. So why is this necessary? Let's start with Sage's story. If you watch the State of the Union address, you saw a young girl named Sage who was there. And Sage was a little confused. This young person started maybe trying to identify as a boy. Her parents actually lost custody of her, and she was placed in a boy's home where she was molested, where she was sexually abused, and where she ultimately ran away from. and she actually, they put her online, put her in contact with all the trans sites and so forth, and she was talking to what she thought was a 16-year-old boy somewhere else. She ran away to that 16-year-old boy, except it was an adult male predator, and she became a victim of human trafficking, and her mother had to search far and near, high and low, just to find sage. And she was, by the way, told by the people who took her in child protective services that her mother didn want her because she identified as a boy which is a lie And they were withholding all the letters and everything in every attempt that the mother tried to make to see Sage And so Sage returned home Fortunately, she's now doing well. She's doing better, and she was acknowledged at the State of the Union address. In Maryland, there's an African-American Christian family, veterans, who served our country faithfully. They have an autistic young son who was struggling with his gender identity. And CPS came and took that son away from the parents because they would not call their son their daughter. And Colorado recently has passed an outrageous bill. It's House Bill 25-1312. And basically parents are required to accept and to validate the declaration of their child when they declare that they are the opposite sex. And if they don't, parents are labeled as coercive and dangerous by the courts. How does this relate to Ohio? Well, there's coercion in Cuyahoga County. The Department of Youth and Children's Services was caught red-handed laying the foundation for just such efforts. And they were doing things like this. They were proactively screening children for their SOGI, for their sexual identity and gender orientation. And I had some files in here, and I have totally misplaced them. But you have them. Here they are. They actually have a script and guidelines. They were publishing on their website how to talk to a child about their sex, their gender identity, and not just 18-year-olds. They have five-year-olds. And they're going in to these five-year-olds and saying, do you like boys? Do you like girls? Do you feel like a boy? Do you feel like a girl? That is outrageous that any government agency would do that and talk to sex, talk about sex to minors as young as five. And what's even more outrageous is they were creating a database on this. Now, I remember when I carried the SAFE Act a couple years ago, one of our versions asked for anonymized data. In other words, strip out all the identifying factors. Just give us the statistics on how many kids you're putting on puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones, surgeries. And everyone was crying foul. Gary Cluck wants the transgender database. That's going to be a clip somewhere, I'm sure. And now I found out that everything that they seem to accuse us of doing is exactly what they're doing. And they have this transgender database. And they are also putting on that database, are the parents affirming enough or are they not? And you can read some of the comments there, by the way. You have access to the database. I put that in there. And so I put some of the cues in there. Let me just say this. It's neither a crime nor dangerous to raise your son as a boy, your daughter as a girl. They also use third-party coercive techniques. If you have a parent who maybe has a child that is confused about their gender and you tell them, Bobby, no, Bobby, you're a boy, or Susie, no, you're a girl. They want to put you through re-education. They train all their staff to do this. They have videos out there that do this. And in those videos that they presented, they're basically criticizing parents and saying that you're harmful or you're dangerous for raising your son as a boy, your daughter as a girl. And by the way, if your religion gets involved in this, your religion is bad. You know, that's a violation of the First Amendment because Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof. they are violating that separation of church and state by criticizing the religious and ridiculing the religious beliefs of parents. And so we have some federal guidance that was issued. I have been in touch through third parties with the Department of Health and Human Services They recently issued guidance They are aware of my bill It been presented to them They issued their own guidance that is very similar to my bill Basically it says that it is if I can find the exact wording here that it encourages states to adopt a definition of abuse and neglect that clearly defines what the term does and does not mean. For example, a state's definition should provide that treating a child in a manner consistent with his or her sex and refusing to condone sex-rejecting interventions does not constitute abuse. And my time has expired. I promised you to get it in in five minutes, Chair, and I think I have done that, and I am so grateful to have the Honorable Josh Williams as my joint sponsor.

Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. Ranking Member Sinnenberg has a question.

Thank you, colleague and friend of Representative Sinnenberg. We are protecting children are parts of families, and we protect all families. One of the things that's very important to recognize here is that even in the SAFE Act or this legislation, legislation, the SAFE Act banned the mutilation of children through hormones and through surgeries. It did not, and still does not, and we still are not proposing to tell families that they cannot socially affirm their children. Now, personally, I think that's a bad idea. Children need direction from their parents. But we have not said, if you want to treat Johnny as Susie or Susie as Johnny, we've not banned that. But they are trying to ban us from raising Johnny as Johnny and Susie as Susie. So we respect the rights of parents to make those decisions that fall short of physical abuse of their children. But we also demand that our families be respected and honored as they raise their children according to the best scientific practices that are delivered to us by HHS. Follow-up?

I think that's a trick question. I don't know that you meant it that way, but do I acknowledge that children have gender disorder? 100%. Do I acknowledge that children have gender identity disorder? That was what it was called previously. That's actually a better description of it that was changed for political reasons. but do I think someone that a boy was born with a girl's brain or a girl was born with a boy's brain and that you were born in the anybody could be born in the wrong body I do not accept that as scientifically accurate there's no science validates that.

Science teaches us that that is a mental health issue. And through my prior research on the SAFE Act, all of these children have multiple comorbidities. Many of them are victims of abuse. And this trans identity is a means of escape. What we do know is that children who are left to their own without medical intervention, 98% of them will desist after puberty. And they will begin to re-identify with their natal sex. But we know that once you put those children on puberty blockers and opposite sex hormones, and once you begin to validate that identity, that adds to the confusion. If a child has an eating disorder, if a skinny girl thinks she's fat, we don't help them by saying, yes, you are fat, let's get you liposuction. That doesn't work. And it's the same thing with children who are confused about their gender and their gender identity. And so the best help for them is to teach them the truth, help them to live authentically in the body that they were born with. But as an adult, if you choose to do something different, that is certainly your right. But there is no matter. Even the AMA is backing off of this, as are the American College of Plastic Surgeons. The WPATH files have revealed that WPATH is a fraudulent organization that knew that they were harming children. We can look at Jamie Reed, who is a lady that exposes this practice in Missouri. She is a lesbian who has worked in this field. She thought she was helping transgender children. She realized that she was harming them, and she's become an advocate across the nation, founded an organization called LGB Courage that stands for the truth and the biological science and reality that boys are boys and girls are girls. May I respond, Chair?

Thank you, Chair. To the ranking member, I just want to make sure I'm on the record for what my personal opinion is. I do believe that individuals exist that believe they are the opposite sex. I believe those individuals exist. I think it's a false belief, and I think it's harmful for our society to affirm said false belief, and for time immemorial, that was considered a mental condition. And now we're in a position where members of our society, especially members of your caucus, decide that they want to affirm those beliefs in minor children as young as five years old. I reject that premise. I reject the ideology. and I believe that parents have a constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit, including affirming their biological sex. What we've seen, since we're in the judiciary, we have lawyers and one honorary, what we've seen is the Supreme Court time and time again affirm an individual's right to reject that ideology. We've seen it in First Amendment practices when it came to teachers that refused to use pronouns. We've seen it time and time again when it came to professors that refused to use pronouns that the Supreme Court said that there was a First Amendment right. We've seen it time and time again when it comes to the Supreme Court since 1923 saying that two fit parents have the ability to determine what is best for their children. We also understand that the government cannot coerce parents and cannot coerce speech. So the idea that a government agency is able to coerce parents into calling their child by a different name or addressing them as a different gender is coercive in nature and unconstitutional violation of free speech. In addition, it's a violation of anyone's sincerely held religious beliefs. So we here to say clearly we not picking sides saying whether or not a parent should affirm a child gender or sexual orientation we have not touched that in this bill What this bill says is that if a parent refuses to accept that ideology and decides to raise their child in support and affirmation of their biological sex it shall not be classified as abuse, neglect, dependency, or somehow against the best interest of the minor child. That's common sense, an 80-20 issue, that everyone should be able to support the idea that parents should be able to make that determination for their children, and the government should never force them to go against either their own religious beliefs, their free speech, or their belief they are raising their child in the best interest. If I can just clarify or amend my statement, I'm not ashamed to say what I believe and what I believe is scientific and medically accurate information. However, that is not what this bill is about. It's not about what I believe. It's about what a parent's rights are in raising their children. And that was clarified by my honorable joint sponsor, who, by the way, is an attorney if you're keeping a bingo card going on. But that is the premise here. So I'm not understanding, and I know I'm not supposed to ask you questions, but maybe you can clarify. Why do you believe that the government should come in and tell parents how to raise their children?

Through the chair to the ranking member, I look forward to any psychologist that you have that comes in and testifies. We've seen false reporting before about suicide rates. We've also seen the right reports that come out that show that suicide rates go up after an actual surgical transition as a minor child and are put on cross-sex hormones at a young age, that their suicide rate actually goes up as an adult. So we're not here to debate the science behind it. We're simply saying that parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit. This is a constitutionally protected fundamental right that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed over and over and over again. I've spoke about it on the floor before. We have decisions as recent as 2002 in the Granville decision where the court continues to say that fit parents are able to raise their children as they see fit and that a court or the government should not step in and say that they believe that something is contrary to the best end of their child just because it's in conflict with what those fit parents are. If you want to stand on the position that not affirming a child's sexual orientation or gender as young as five years old is somehow making a parent unfit, that's something I would prefer you to go on the record for, not us. We're saying that parents have that right to make that decision. If you want to push that envelope and say that these parents are unfit, that's an 80-20 issue. Good luck.

Through the chair to the vice chair, yes, it was Cuyahoga County. And this was exposed, this was brought to my attention about a year ago. There are children and family services by investigative journalist Megan Brock. And she called me because of the SAFE Act. She called me because she was doing some reporting on this. and she told me what was going on and asked me if I had a statement and part of my statement was I will not allow this to stand in Ohio Follow up Two follow ups May I follow up Yes Thank you Through the chair to the vice chair So this is how this happened okay Under the Biden administration

Through the chairman, no, I have not. I have not even reached out to them. I have had conversations with DYS.

They have not reached out to me, but they have altered their website because, fortunately, I cached some of their websites, and they've changed it since then. Some of the links are gone, not all of them. And I will say also that they have a category, CAFF, where they are a plate that is designated in the database that you can read, and it talks about placing children with chosen affirming families rather than their families that do not affirm them. One more follow-up.

Through the chair, I hope they do.

Representative Piccola-Antonio with a question. Thank you, Chair. Honestly, I find this repeated conversation exhausting when there are actual issues, including issues related to, I think you brought up child sexual abuse. there are real issues that exist that we're not talking about in the committee right now However I do have some questions about one of the definitions that included in the bill So one of the definitions that is included in this bill is a definition of something called parental alienation. I had it open on my screen if you need me to, it's line 1180 is the definition of parental alienation in the bill. So one of the things this bill would do is to create that new term and enshrine it in Ohio Revised Code. My understanding of that phrase is that it was invented by a Dr. Richard Gardner, who is a psychiatrist, who made a career as a paid expert witness, often defending fathers who were accused of sexually abusing their children. It is a term that many notable legal authorities, including National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, they have all dismissed the idea of parental alienation syndrome. So I wondered, I guess, why that term is part of this bill, especially at a time when we are having a whole lot of conversation and reckoning with child sexual abuse in this country. Could you explain why this phrase is in this bill and why you think that the definition of this phrase should be included?

And that's why we are working on this for the families in the state of Ohio. And I'll let the Honorable Joshua Williams answer the rest of your question. Through the chair to the member, I share my joint sponsors' outrage at your comments. for you to find it exhaustive for us to continue to deal with non-issues, as you said, and that there's real issues that exist. I think any time the government threatens to take away your child, it's a real issue. Whatever the basis is, it's a real issue, because I've stood next to parents through custody disputes. When they're fighting over whether or not a child gets to live with one parent again. I'm sorry. I've stood with parents during custody disputes. The origin of the term parental alienation is not the direction of this bill, but that is a real term that's used in family law. I don't know if you practice family law or not, but I do, and I've dealt with parental alienation before. And specifically, we're using a term here when we're talking about third-party groups that are putting pressure on the minor child to alienate from their parents. We're seeing that. We see it in California where they pass multiple pieces of legislation allowing children to run away from home and into the safety of NGOs and they do not have to disclose that the child is with them. We've seen it in multiple states under Democrat control where you believe that third party entities can go and solicit your child online, tell them they're transgender, give them resources, convince them to run away from home and into the arms of them, and then like Sage, they end up in the arms of human traffickers. So if you truly had an honest intent to talk about sexual abuse, you should be talking about Sage's case. That's the individual that was human trafficked because of the woke ideology that's being pushed by your caucus. And we're simply saying, look, we're not going to get in the middle of the ideology debate, but what we're going to say is that parents have the absolute right to raise their children because the court has said time and time again they have a fundamental right, a fundamental constitutionally protected right as fit parents to decide what is in the best interest of their child. And we should not have an entity in this state that quietly and secretly can investigate you, label you, and work superstitiously to remove your child simply because you don't buy in to the wokeness that's coming out of the Democrat Party. I absolutely believe that parents have a constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit. If you disagree with that premise, you disagree with the Supreme Court. Follow-up. Thanks, Chair. There were a lot of words that were just said. I want to go back to the question that I asked, and I'm really asking you to focus in on this definition because one of the parts of that definition is it says parental alienation says that it occurs when a child is alienated from a parent without a valid reason. There's no definition of a valid reason in this code section. And so when I put some of the things together, like the answer that you gave to Representative Sinnenberg with this bill, and I hear you saying that this is a bill about parental rights, which I'm a parent too. I want the right to raise my own children. But when you put those two things together, the without a valid reason, parental alienation, without any definition of what valid reasons are, and then your, I guess both of your expressed opinions as non-medical experts, as non-mental health experts about whether or not transgender people exist. I'm really struggling with that definition being part of any legislation, I guess. Through the chair to the representative, I'm going to say this in the most polite way as a lawyer to another lawyer. What I think you struggle with is the ability to read the statute. because if you read it, and I'll read it in its entirety, okay? Parental alienation means a mental or emotional state in which, without a valid reason, a minor child does both of the following. Rejects a fit parent, guardian, or legal custodian. Allies strong with another parent or individual or group of individuals who do not have legal custody or control over the minor, sometimes called the chosen family. What that is saying, it is parental alienation for a non-guardian. of the child to recruit them and alienate them from the parent who's recognized as their guardian. That's what we're saying. We're recognizing the actual parent's ability to raise their children. And we are saying that any outside entity, whether it's a parent that doesn't have guardianship or a third party that's putting pressure on the child to alienate from their parent, it's defined. That's what we said in the definition. So you conveniently left out the word both and left out subsection two Through the chair to Representative Pico Antonio I do believe you care about children just like we do

Just so I'm perfectly clear, I don't think that there is ever an instance of child abuse that is acceptable. There is no such thing as acceptable child abuse. I want to talk a little bit more about the definition. So this definition is not confined to the kinds of situations that you have talked about. I mean, this is a definition that theoretically could apply in a scenario where there is a parent who is abusing a child. I guess, can you walk me through how that plays out under this definition?

I don't know what the term means, parental alienation.

that clearly is covered under criminal statutes, which I've moved time and time again in the legislature to increase penalties for. And it's also covered by Child Protective Services. Nothing in this bill changes that. Nothing in this bill attempts to protect child abusers, sexual abusers of children. What we're saying is that by affirming your child's biological sex, it shall not be classified as abuse. I don't know if you're standing on the other side of that argument saying it should be classified as abuse because you haven't made that clear. But by the definition that we put, parental alienation is when a child rejects their actual guardian parent and seeks out a third party that is not the guardian. Whether it's a parent that doesn't have guardianship, an organization, a group, or even a government entity. That is encouraging them to move away from their parent. That's parental alienation. Parental alienation is used in family law terms as in one party pushes the child, coerces the child to alienate from the other party. We simply use the term in family law to say parental alienation. Typically, it is when one parent does it to the other. And I've experienced this through family law practice where one parent talks to the minor child about the dad and how bad of a guy he is and this and that. And the kid moves away from the dad and I don't want to see you anymore. And I've seen it where dad does it to mom and the kid moves away from mom. That term is used in family law. In this instance, we're talking about when third parties that are not the guardian pushes the child to remove themselves from the parent like we saw in Sage's case. And in other cases where third parties are encouraging kids because the parent is non-affirming of their sexual orientation or gender identity of the minor child, that these third parties are encouraging the kids to transition in secret. we saw that in the public schools. Transitioning secret given chest binders which we saw in this case Yes We saw Cuyahoga County give a child a chest binder even though the parent was not affirming I mean you doing it without parental consent Those third parties are pushing the child more and more away from the parent and into their sphere of influence. And we're saying that that's parental alienation, and it should be. Follow-up.

Representative Williams, I think you brought up, I guess, a question that I have maybe for both of you, which is, what is your perspective about parents who affirm their children? Are they abusing their children? Should they lose custody of their children? Through the chair, that is not a part of this legislation, and no, we are not suggesting that they should lose their custody of their children.

Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, this will probably come out in proponent testimony. I'm just trying to figure out what's actually happened here in Ohio. I've just heard of the case in Ohio can you give me like in the committee an overview of what we're going to what's actually happened on the ground besides the fact that they've had this database with these labels what are the kind of actions that you know or believe have occurred as a result of them taking this information and logging parents in certain categories in Ohio and maybe in particular in Cuyahoga County.

it's hard to give you a direct answer of what the results are because if this deals with child custody, let's say the Department of Child Protective Services files for an emergency order to remove custody from a parent, that's in juvenile court and it's under seal. So we can't get that information unless the parent comes forward. We've seen cases where the parents come forward like some of the cases outlined by Representative Click. What we can tell you is that just from the publicly available information in the database and from Cuyahoga County, we have seen that a government agency gave gender affirming items to a child without parental consent. That's confirmed. We've also seen where they then took this database and the categories of children being either their gender, their sexual orientation or gender identity, then determine placement priorities based off of whether or not the foster parent, the caregiver or the adoptive parent was going to be affirming or not. So that is the entire opposite of what we saw couples suing over in the state of Ohio and in other states where we had gay couples suing for the right to become foster parents, the right to become adoptive parents, saying that our sexual orientation shouldn't be a factor in whether or not we're fit parents. Now we're seeing the opposite, where couples that are not willing or adoptive parents, prospective foster parents who are not willing to affirm the child's gender identity or sexual orientation are essentially being barred from placement of that child. Now, they're not blankly being barred, but for them to list where they are placing a child with an affirming family, that indicates that they are not going to place the child with a non-affirming family. And that was the basis of the federal mandate that came down from the Biden administration The idea was that you screen these kids when they come in contact with the child protective services you categorize them classify them And if there are placement opportunities you only do it with affirming individuals The second phase was then you could use that as a basis of abuse or neglect and that where you starting to see these things pop out of essentially Democrat states where they push legislation saying that it is abuse, that your child can be removed from you based on the fact that you're not affirming. We haven't seen many cases like that in Ohio. We've seen some cases that that was one of the factors in consideration. And what we made clear in the legislation is that that cannot be the sole basis to remove custody or deny visitation or deny foster care or adoptive services. But if there are other reasons, right, to remove a child, you can still – child abuse, sexual abuse, you can still go after the parent and remove the child for those reasons. This can't be the sole basis for that determination is what the legislation says. So, and again, if you take a look at the database, you'll see columns X and Y are blacked out. They just – all they do is black it out, but they didn't eliminate – they didn't properly redact it. So you can look up in the header and see what it actually says. And that's where you see a five-year-old. That's where you see a nine-year-old. That's where you see CAFF, which means that they're placing that child with a chosen affirming family. We have a case in there where it says mother needs help. There was one mother that was afraid to let her son go off into a hospital because she was afraid she was going to lose the child and so forth. And what we also see here, which we've not addressed yet, I'm surprised that our colleagues on the other side haven't brought it up yet. But there are families who have been denied the ability in certain parts of our state to seek counseling to help their child, the counseling that they want. They totally corrupt the meaning of conversion therapy, and conversion therapy requires force. It requires pain, electroshock therapy, ice baths, and things like that. And they want to describe it as if you tell a boy he's a boy, that's conversion therapy. I think conversion therapy is when you tell a boy he's a girl. That's conversion therapy. And in fact, many of the people in the LGB community have said that's conversion therapy because you're taking children that are normally gay, bi, or lesbian, and you're telling them they have to change sex to be legitimate. And many people in that community are outraged by this type of a policy and a process. And there was a lady in Cincinnati who I spoke with whose child was going through these gender struggles. And rather than take her to someone to deal with the gender-affirming care, she took her child to someone who really wasn't even familiar with that theory and just dealt with eating disorders. And he used the same cognitive behavioral therapy that you would use with a child with eating disorders. And that child naturally developed out of it. There was no coercion. There was no force. But our colleagues want to track children into that misnomer that they are born in the wrong body. And that's a part of what this is happening in Cincinnati. Cuyahoga County is proud. They're the first ones to ban that. They say boldly, yeah, we're glad we did it. But parents want the choice to be able to take their child to someone who can help them understand how they are made perfectly and genuinely and authentically. Just really quickly, through the chair, remember, there are other instances that we know what happened in Ohio. One, they came up with parental education classes. where if you were a non-affirming parent, you would have to take these classes to teach you that you should be affirming. So essentially indoctrinating the parent into the woke ideology, where that threatens the fact that what happens if you don't want to take the class? What if you're not affirming? There's no records because juvenile cases are sealed. What we also know happened in the state of Ohio is there was third-party entities that were contracted through Cuyahoga, County that would train their staff member on non affirming being abuse and neglect and for you to start looking for it in your cases. So that that's now shifting the mindset of employees to treat non affirming parents as though there are inherently abusive to their children. And this bill addresses that as well. we're saying that you shall not contract with contractors that provide that type of training to employees in the state of Ohio that indicate that non-affirming of your child's sexual orientation or gender identity is somehow inherently abusive. Instead, we flip it on its head and say affirming a child's biological sex shall not be considered abuse, neglect, or contrary to the child's best interest. So those are examples of what actually happened in Ohio without being able to get into the individual cases, because typically they're under seal. Let me add this. All you need to do to open up an investigation is someone can report anonymously. I could report you and say, hey, I think he's abusing his child, or I don't think his child's eating enough, or whatever it is. As soon as you do that, it's anonymous, number one. And then number two, they are required to open up an investigation. And if you read the documentation that's in there, they say, ask every child this. So you don't just go look and say, that kid looks like they might be trans or they might be gay or something. No, every child is supposed to be asked these questions, every single child. So somebody could just make a false allegation against you, CPS shows up, and they start asking your child all of these invasive questions. If that's all it was, it's enough. I don't want some adult, some stranger coming in and asking my – thank God all my children are grown right now. But I wouldn't want some stranger coming in asking my children if they like boys or girls when they're in kindergarten. That's ludicrous. That's crazy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. I wanted to just briefly ask about what impact this bill will have on courts. So generally in Ohio, courts consider what they call the best interest of the child. They're not considering the political ideology of the parent or their preference. it's almost always on the best interest of the child. And judges typically have a lot of latitude. They consider all factors, you know, and this is an issue that obviously a lot of us disagree on. It's understandable. But, you know, I think Rep. Williams mentioned how we don't want to politicize this issue. And one of the things that we're concerned about is you're creating a carve-out. You're saying judges can't consider all relevant factors. Why create this exception?

that's a very thoughtful question. I thank you for it. And that is because there are some judges who are injecting and they are receiving guardian ad litem testimonies or from CPS who would say this is harmful and they would receive that information and consider this factor. We are simply saying this is one factor that you cannot consider because saying that a judge cannot say, well, I think he is trans, so now you have to treat him that way or else. that's not up for the state of Ohio to decide in any courtroom or any department. That's something for the parents to decide, and we are making sure that we are protecting parental rights.

I'll throw the chair to the representative. I think that is a question you asked in very good faith, and I appreciate that on a topic that could be politicized. So, yes, we have a best interest standard in the state of Ohio, But the Supreme Court in Troxell v. Granville in 2002 clearly outlined that the constitutional rights of fit parents to determine what's in the best interest of their children cannot be set aside by the court saying they think something is in the best interest of the child just because they can make a better determination That was a clearly defined case that outlined that essentially there is a best interest of the child standard but it cannot be contrary to what are the choices of two fit parents. And we're simply saying that if a fit parent makes the determination that they want to raise their child affirming their biological sex, the court shall not consider that contrary to the best interest of the child. That's a direction that the legislature gives. We give direction to the legislature all the time. You can look at Senate Bill 174, House Bill 256, House Bill 550. These are all bills that we are dealing with the allegation of parental rights and responsibilities in the state of Ohio. We deal with these topics all the time, so it's not unique that we are creating this card. We're simply saying that, look, the Supreme Court has already said it. We need to make sure it's recognized in Ohio. And the only way to assure that that's going to happen in all 88 counties is by a statute that clearly defines what can and cannot happen within that custody dispute.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So in response to that, and again, let me give you a specific scenario. Let's say you have a situation where a parent is clearly rejecting a child's identity. You have a clear situation where there is clear evidence that that child is being harmed physically, mentally. emotionally, not necessarily physically, because that's physical abuse, but emotionally, there's clear evidence to that regard. Would that not directly, I mean, you're essentially preventing courts from considering that as a factor. That's what I'm going for. It's a specific situation.

representative, because the parent is exercising a constitutionally protected right. Um, you know, I've, I've raised children in the state of Ohio. My son is now 20 years old. I have two stepkids that both served in the military. When I took away their PlayStation, their tablet, their cell phone, they could have said it was emotional abuse. When I told them that they couldn't date at a certain age, could they say that that was causing them anxiety or stress? Of course, there's things that happen when you raise your child that the child doesn't agree with. Absolutely, that occurs all the time. Can that lead to issues within the family structure? Absolutely. But are we gonna get in the position of the government's gonna be able to step in at every parental decision that's made by fit parents The Supreme Court clearly said that we can't. So all we're doing is clarifying by statute that the court cannot use the best interest of the child standard to offset the decision of fit parents when it comes to gender identity and sexual orientation of a minor child. That's all this does. It literally takes the decisions from the court. Since 1923, we've had those decisions by the court about the constitutionally protected liberty, interest in parents to raise their children as they see fit, so long as they are fit parents and they are not physically abusing the child, and that shall not be considered against the child's best interest just because the court sees that they can come to a better determination. And that's been enshrined by the Supreme Court in as recent as 2002.

my view is that we ought to love our children no matter what they go through, whether we agree with it or whether we disagree with it. But we do know that sometimes that disagreement could lead to other actions that might not be illegal, such as physical abuse, as you mentioned. That's still illegal. This is not an excuse to physically abuse your child. Not being an attorney, I don't know what the statutes are regarding verbal abuse. I don't think that would be appropriate. I don't know if it's illegal or not, but it's certainly not appropriate. But we are just simply saying the basic premise that you affirm your son as a boy or your daughter as a girl is not abuse Anything outside of that that is normally abuse does not change Representative Click and Representative Williams my understanding is you guys have sponsored testimony in other committees Okay so we going to I realize you may have additional

Chairman Thomas, Vice Chair Swaringen, Ranking Member Sinenberg, and members of the House Judiciary Committee, I'm Sharon Montgomery, and I'm here again to give you my views on House Bill 690. I strongly support the intent of this bill to motivate drivers to obey crossing guards, to increase the safety of the guards and the students, and to hold the drivers who still won't obey and properly accountable. The statistics the sponsors gave were more than alarming. Representative Timms' question about whether the distracted driving law has reduced the incidence was a good one. That is data that should be collected to know more about whether the distracted driving law is working and to know if this law works if it's enacted. I can only think of two reasons why drivers would be so callous as to disobey a school crossing guard. They don't care or they don't notice them. This bill provides some justice for the guards who are mistreated or disobeyed. Could we also think of some preventive measures? Perhaps they could be provided with a loud whistle so they are more noticeable. I know enforcement cameras are a controversial issue, but perhaps this is a good use for them. Not long ago, a Columbus City official was caught by a speed camera going well over the reduced speed limit signaled by the flashing signs. Instead of learning his lesson, and either simply keeping quiet or better, admitting his guilt publicly as a way to encourage safe driving in school zones, he chose to use his experience as a chance to complain about speed cameras. If signs were posted that cameras were in place, might more drivers obey the guards? I don't know, but I do believe that we need prevention along with these penalties. The provisions of this bill will protect the guards if the public knows the provisions exist and if they believe the law will be enforced. Drivers who are apt to commit these offenses have to believe that the odds are against them of getting away with them, or they won't stop committing them. While I support stronger penalties, this bill, like House Bills 3, 82, 111, 132, and 533, and Senate Bill 97, some of which were or are also before this committee, are to some extent putting the cart before the horse. The horse bills are House Bill 357, which you have yet to hear, and House Bill 714. And by the way, 714 would require drivers to stop, not just yield, to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The horse bills get closer to the root of the problem. The problem is that Chapter 4511 traffic offenses don't provide sure penalties for causing serious injury or death, except when the offender is drunk or drugged And the definitions of vehicular homicide vehicular manslaughter and vehicular assault are too narrow to cover enough circumstances in which an innocent road user is seriously harmed by a driver. And even when vehicular homicide, vehicular manslaughter, and vehicular assault can be charged, their penalties are not always proportionate to the harm caused. Also, the definition of the culpable mental states of reckless and negligent are too dependent on any one prosecutor's interpretation. With so many CART bills, if they all pass, we'll have inconsistent penalties for serious injury and death. Among the pending bills, the proposed offense levels for serious injury range from third-degree misdemeanor to fourth-degree felony. The offense levels for death range from second-degree misdemeanor to second-degree felony. Of course, different crash circumstances can warrant different offense levels and thus penalties, but I've been watching bills of this kind for over 20 years, and I still don't see evidence that we have any standard criteria for these circumstances. The criterion seems to be which casually, and I have to say casually because Marcy's law excluded most of us from the definition of victim, can get the most sympathy from their state legislator. The better approach would be to take these steps. One, acknowledge that road users seriously harmed by drivers who break traffic laws can suffer all the same kinds of physical, psychological, financial, legal, and logistical problems as people harmed by those who break other kinds of laws. Two, acknowledge that holding any lawbreaker accountable proportionately to the amount of harm caused is necessary, not just for the hope that they will not cause that harm again, but so the harmed person can have a chance to heal psychologically and financially as much as possible. Three, acknowledge that most traffic crashes are not accidental. I noticed Representative Young used the phrase traffic mistake in his sponsor testimony. I'd like to ask him to reconsider using that phrase. Most of them result from a driver's decision. That decision might be as simple as not bothering to watch for signs along the road noting a change in speed limit, or as egregious as speeding up four car lengths from a yellow light to run the red light, or setting up your phone before leaving home so you can distract your mind with a movie or meeting while you drive by starting it with a legal simple touch or swipe. But it's still a decision. Four, amend 29-3001's definition of criminal offense so traffic casualties are victims and have legal rights and qualify for state support services. Five, determine a set of standard criteria for appropriate accountability for traffic violations that result in serious harm to innocent road users. Six, make a comprehensive review of Chapter 4511 with these acknowledgments in mind. 7. Establish new offense levels based on the standard criteria. 8. Establish consistent ranges of penalties for those offense levels. 9. Determine which categories of road users and or which crash locations and or which crash circumstances justify requiring the top of the penalty ranges. 10. Amend 45.1199 and or Traffic Rule 13 so that any at-fault offender must appear in court. 11. Create an appeal process for when prosecutor discretion becomes prosecutor error. I'm attaching my proposal for a traffic offense task force that could accomplish some of these steps. I've been told by a staff member the governor's office that I as an individual cannot ask for a task force to be created. Some are created by the governor and some by legislation. Perhaps some of you on this committee or some of these many penalty bill sponsors would introduce legislation for a task force. I'm willing to answer any of your questions. Thank you.

Ms. Representative Timms with a question. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say thank you, Sharon, for coming to testify today, and I really appreciate the very detailed outline of ideas, and I'm sure that my colleagues and I will have a lot of conversations about what this can do and what this may be, so thank you so much. Thank you.

Chairman Thomas, Representative Pecklantonio, the task force, the basics of it,

Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Thomas. Thank you once again for coming in today to testify and advocating for more safety on our roads. So we have several bills. You mentioned a bunch. They're done by number. I can't remember them all. But dealing with road safety, traffic, school crossing guards, school crossing zones. And just earlier this General Assembly, at least on the House side, we passed the Philip Ligal law dealing with slowing down on the highways. And so is your opinion that we should pause these bills, do a task force, and then have one comprehensive bill that kind of deals with all of these competing bills?

Follow-up?

Yes, one follow-up. Thank you, Chair. So, in other words, you're not advocating for slowing down any of these bills. but in a perfect world, this task force would be quickly assembled, and they would look at all of these, issue a report, here's what we should have, and then that bill would be acted on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

seen no further business. The committee stands adjourned.