Facebook Banner A copy

 

I am making our position very clear on this issue and you need to also. The proposed bill that this discusses in a bill that failed almost 15 years ago and contains no updated law or provisions. That is not acceptable for any parent in Ohio.

We need to send a very clear message that we will not support this garbage bill the National Parents Organization is attempting to have introduced.

Contact Senator LaRose Immediately

SD27@senate.state.oh.us General box

In the text of the message place the following and the following only:

I am a supporter of the reforms that Ohio Family Rights has proposed for Ohio. The language of the bill that you are working on at the request of National Parents Organization is weak and in not acceptable to me. I will not support this bill.

This bill was attempted before and failed. Bringing it back is the definition of insanity and serves no purpose other than to waste time on much needed reforms to Ohio law.

Sincerely,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

The proposed bill we need to stop

The old bill that failed

The second introduction

What the judges said about that bill

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

 

Dear Senator LaRose;

Having received on Friday morning August 8, 2014, a copy of LSC 130 2136 (don’t ask because I won’t tell) that Senator LaRose submitted for language checking by LSC, as President of Ohio Family Rights I need to make our stance very clear that this proposal is not passable in the Ohio General Assembly and is woefully inadequate at solving the problems that exist within divorce and never marries custody issues. This is in fact a step backward of over 10 years of efforts to correct the problems that exist within Ohio’s “shared parenting” law.

Language that is contained within this also identifies to us who brought the forward to the senator’s office. Frankly this is the same organization and party that sat in a meeting with the Senator in December of 2011 and could not support why many of the items that are now included within this proposal should be used in place of the already introduced GA 129th SB144. This is the same organization that refused to tell the Senator that they had no opposition to that bill moving forward without amendment; they told me but refused to tell you.

Language in this proposal is similar to GA 127th HB232 that failed because of judicial opposition to the use of the terms ‘Substantially equal”, “substantial equality” and the inclusion of the “family access” section which is now in this. Attached is a copy of the Judicial opposite to that bill.

Common sense tells us that if a bill failed for those reasons there is no sense in trying it again or as Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”.

SB144 was a perfect bill at the time of introduction and I have updated the language to account for changes to case law and a consistency issue that we have found in the way the courts deal with moving throughout this state. That language has been given to Senator Skindell as he has indicated he will introduce the bill again with the changes included. I can honestly say that if the language in LSC 2136 is introduced as a bill, it will be opposed not only by us as an organization but by every parent within Ohio that we represent which far exceeds the number of parents that National Parents Organization represents here. That does not even include the opposite that will come from the Domestic Relations Judges Association and others.

Sincerely,

Ray R. Lautenschlager

President

Ohio Family Rights

akron@ohiofamilyrights.info

I am going to go thru LSC 130 2136 line by line and identify all language that we oppose and explain why.

Line 23 – The addition of the words and access to serve no purpose and have no bearing on custody decisions.

Line 30 - The addition of the words and access to serve no purpose and have no bearing on custody decisions.

Line 33 - The addition of the words and access to serve no purpose and have no bearing on custody decisions.

Line 103 - The addition of the words and access to serve no purpose and have no bearing on custody decisions.

Line 129 - The addition of the words and access to serve no purpose and have no bearing on custody decisions.

Line 133 - The addition of the words and access to serve no purpose and have no bearing on custody decisions.

Line 136 – 148 – This entire section is misplaced with Ohio Law. The use of the term substantially equal rights in not definable and language similar to this was used in GA 125th HB232 and was opposed by the judges of Ohio. The single term was one of the major downfalls of HB232 that led to it not passing.

Line 147 – 148 of the same section does not use proper legal terminology for the state of Ohio. These determinations are legally referred to as a “finding of facts and conclusion of law.”

Line 157 - The addition of the words and access to are confusing and un-definable. One of the single largest problems with Ohio’s shared parenting law is the lack of a baseline that legally directs the courts as to how they are to divide custody between parents. This terminology is devoid of legal definition and must be clearly defined as equal legal and physical access to properly correct this problem.

Line 196 – 199 - fails to follow the recommendations of the last two Child Support Guidelines Review Committees which recommended that child support orders be automatically deviated to account for the amount of time that parents have the children in their possession. Without this change, the current status quo problem of Ohio’s child support tables and guidelines stays in place which all too often causes a parent to “double” pay support for a child, once thru their child support obligation and a second time directly while the child is in their household.

Line 201 - The addition of the words and access to are confusing and un-definable for the reason afore previously mentioned.

Line 224 - The addition of the words and access to are confusing and un-definable for the reason afore previously mentioned.

Line 252 - The addition of the words and access to are confusing and un-definable for the reason afore previously mentioned.

Line 286 - The addition of the words and access to are confusing and un-definable for the reason afore previously mentioned.

Line 327 – The use of the term “shared parenting” lacks definition. Again this is where the major problem exists with Ohio law in its current state. The continued use of this term allows for a parent to spend as little a single day with their child and still have a “share”. As was done with GA 129th SB144 this term must disappear from the Ohio Revised Code.

Line 365 - The use of the term substantially equal rights in not definable and we oppose it for the afore mention reasons.

Line 374 - The use of the term substantial equality in not definable and we oppose it for the afore mention reasons. This is again not proper legal terminology.

Line 386 – 389 - The use of the terminology shared parenting plan that provides substantial equality with regard to the rights and responsibilities for the care of and access to the children is again improper and lacking in legal definition.

Line 403 – Again we see and undefined term with the use of “shared parenting” which we have stated before we are opposed to.

Line 407 - Again we see and undefined term with the use of “shared parenting” which we have stated before we are opposed to.

Line 413 - Again the use of access instead of the proper terminology without equal a true definition.

Line 416 - Again the undefined substantial equality which has been shown is an open door for the blockage of this bill by the judges.

Line 425 - Again the undefined substantial equality which has been shown is an open door for the blockage of this bill by the judges.

Line 438 Again the undefined substantial equality which has been shown is an open door for the blockage of this bill by the judges.

Line 454-455 – Again we see shared parenting which we stand opposed to as stated before.

Line 473 -474 - Again we see shared parenting which we stand opposed to as stated before.

Line 481 - Again the undefined substantial equality which has been shown is an open door for the blockage of this bill by the judges.

Line 490 - Again the undefined substantially equal which we stand firmly opposed to as afore stated.

Line 512 - Again the undefined substantially equal which we stand firmly opposed to as afore stated.

Line 514 – 523 - Again we see shared parenting which we stand opposed to as stated before as well as and access to.

Line 530- 539 – Again we see substantially equal as well as language that indicates a desire to place children in harm’s way. In SB144 we placed a requirement that a parent that had their contact limited because of a barrier that was identified by the court had to remove all barriers before moving to an equal basis. If this language were to go into effect a person that is both a drug addict and an alcoholic would only need to stop using one or the other to have full rights restored. Removing all barriers is the only way in which the state can legally protect a child in these situations. This is done with the use of the only standard of law in which the state may interfere with the fundamental right to be a parenting, unfitness.

Line 724 – SB144 removed the term or potential of. This was done because no judge has a crystal ball and can actually predict the future of anyone. If the can, then please have them supply me with the winning numbers for the next Mega Ball drawing.

Line 733 – 756 - The addition of the words and access to are confusing and un-definable for the reason afore previously mentioned. Again with shared parenting which is undefined

Line 758 – The removal of the phrase but not limited to, in relations to items which may or may not be covered in a parenting plan should raise major concerns to any person of faith. This remove means that directives and agreements made for the parents as to the religious upbringing of their child cannot be journalized within the plan. As a Christian and a resident of a state whose Moto is “With God, all things are possible” I take personal offense to the fact that state law now is telling me that I have no right to say how religion will play a part in the future of my child or any other child in this state. This would also apply to any extracurricular activities which a child may be involved in.

Line 766 - Again the with access to phrase that has been previously discussed.

Line 911- 1053 – This is what has been referring to as the Parenting Time Enforcement Act. This was included in GA 125th HB232 and was strongly opposed by the judges. We oppose it as well and concur with the judge’s previsions argument that this is unnecessary as the court have sufficient powers to enforce parenting time issue thru contempt of court proceedings. This, along with “substantially equal” phrasing was the reason that GA 125th HB232 did not pass. It will be the death of this proposal as well.

This was discussed in December 2009 and when the fact that this was one of the main reasons the previous bill had failed, Don Hubin could not support in any manner as to why it should even be considered.

As a technical note on the provisions changed to ORC 3109.041 – There is a section under this number within the ORC now. LSC did not make note of that in LSC 2136 and did not make the appropriate strike thru on the existing legislation. The existing statute is critical in instructing the procedures of law concerning previous orders of shared parenting and back to a time when Ohio did not have shared parenting. These must remain in place to prevent any confusion as to how old orders are to be handled. SB144 did update that information to prevent any confusion moving forward.

Line 1054 – 1081 - Again this section uses terminology that is confusing and inappropriate. Woefully missing is language added by SB144 that guaranteed that never married fathers were treated as equals with the never married mothers, as provision that exists for married couples under ORC 3109.03 of current law.

Line 1082 – 1659 – Another technical error on the part of LSC as no changes are made to the language.

Line 1660 thru 2053 – The remainder of the proposal again uses with access to which has been previously discussed as to our objects.

 

 

Ohio Family Rights is a national free association of like minded people that work to comprehensively change the way that states and the courts view custody between divorced and never married people.  We have dedicated ourselves to correcting what has long been a major problem of socially engineering fit parents from the lives of their child every day. This goal can only be accomplished by comprehensively correcting the flaws within the “Shared Parenting laws” that are currently in place so that all fit parents and their children can benefit from equal custody. Please join us in our efforts to protect the families of this nation and the future of our children.

We are a free association of people that work in a like manner way. All donations towards the operation of this website and our projects are given of freewill. All material on this website is protected by Copyright © 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. All third party material is used with the express permission of the original author. Use without permission is prohibited. Please contact us thru our contact page. We have no association with any non-profits and do not claim to be one in any way.

facebook-logo
twitter-bird-white-on-blue
OFR copy
New Approach copy
Newsletter copy
Video copy
White Papers copy
donate