Photo: Karolina Grabowska, Pexels
After receiving criticism from legal organizations including the Ohio Judicial Conference, several changes were made to a bill to change custody arrangements in the state in the Legislative Committee this week.
House Bill 14, introduced by Republican Reps. Rodney Creech and Marilyn John, was originally intended to establish a 50/50 custody agreement as the standard in Ohio “to the greatest extent possible.”
With this standard, the bill would require that a parent who objects to “equal decision-making rights and responsibilities or equal parenting time” bear “the burden of proving” why 50/50 custody would be “detrimental to the children.” this is the wording of the bill.
An analysis of the bill by the Legislative Service Commission says the court deciding whether a parenting agreement should not include equal custody “must consider whether a parent intentionally misled the court, made false statements, the other parent caused harm to the child, or “provided false information to gain a tactical advantage.”
A stated aim of the bill, according to the analysis, is to ensure that children have “frequent contact and an ongoing relationship” with both parents following a separation, divorce or annulment, or in situations where the mother is unmarried.
After the bill was introduced in March, various “parent organizations” both inside and outside the state of Ohio testified that they supported the bill.
Supporters included Arkansas attorney Brian Vandiver, who said he was part of Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality, which was working on a similar bill in that state that passed in 2021. Vandiver supported including a higher standard of proof in the bill, one that would require “clear and convincing” evidence of the need for an arrangement other than 50/50 custody.
“The higher burden of proof is appropriate to protect the fundamental rights of children and parents,” Vandiver told the Ohio House Families and Aging Committee in March.
But opponents of the bill included domestic violence advocates and legal coalitions across Ohio. That included Paul Pfeifer, a former Ohio Supreme Court justice and executive director of the Ohio Judicial Conference, who called the bill “a hot mess” and the idea of 50-50 custody as “unnatural.”
Ohio Bar Association representative Nicole Rutter-Hirth also criticized the bill, saying it “sounds well-intentioned, but could have destructive consequences.”
“Providing equal time and equal rights can result in a child receiving the same care as a parent with drug or alcohol addiction or mental health issues,” Rutter-Hirth told the committee. “It could force a victim of domestic violence to co-parent a child with the perpetrator.”
Since the bill's introduction, the bill's sponsors have worked to make the bill more acceptable to the bar and others, according to state Rep. Monica Robb Blasdel, R-Columbiana County, who introduced the bill's changes at Tuesday's committee meeting.
“(The sponsors) believe this is a good bill that addresses the concerns previously raised in committee,” Robb Blasdel said.
The changes, approved under a replacement bill, raise that “clear and convincing” standard of evidence to a “preponderance,” the minimum standard allowed in court proceedings.
The replacement bill also requires a court to “ask each parent whether they wish to enter into a shared parenting agreement and, if the court decides otherwise, put the findings in writing,” explained Robb Blasdel.
The court may also consider other factors in parenting agreements, and the new law changed “equal parenting time and equal rights” to “substantially equal time and decision-making rights.”
The bill is now available for further public comment at committee hearings.
This story was originally published in the Ohio Capital Journal and is republished here with permission.
Comments are closed.