On April 8, 2025, Ohio Senate Bill 174 (SB 174), a bill that would significantly change the way child custody matters are handled and heard by Ohio courts, was introduced in the Ohio Legislature by Senators Theresa Gavarone (R) and Paula Hicks-Hudson (D). To date, SB 174 has not progressed beyond the initial stages of the legislative process, but it has received broad support from various legal, governmental and other interested groups, including the Ohio Judicial Conference, the Ohio State Bar Association and the Ohio Domestic Violence Network.
In the Part 1 of our three-part series, we reviewed Ohio’s current child custody statutes. Specifically, we discussed what the current laws say and require, as well as the practical presumptions built into them. In this second article, we focus on the core provisions of SB 174, examining how they differ from Ohio’s existing child custody laws and the potential impact on current custodial arrangements, parenting time and visitation across Ohio.
1. Eliminating “Shared Parenting” and “Sole Custody”
SB 174 completely eliminates the concept of “shared parenting” and “sole custody,” replacing them with a single concept: “parenting responsibilities” and a “designated parent” for each specific responsibility.
Key terminology changes include:
- Replacing “parental rights and responsibilities” with “parenting responsibilities”
- Eliminating the terms “residential parent” and “custodial parent”
- Using the term “designated parent” for certain specific responsibilities, such as determining school district, claiming tax dependency, paying child support, providing health insurance, etc.
Rationale and Potential Impact
Proponents of SB 174 say the goal is to make custody law more child-focused and to reduce the perception that one parent has greater authority or status. In theory, this could lower the adversarial tone of custody disputes by removing “winner” and “loser” labels.
In practice, however, parents may still view certain designations as a win or a loss. The core disputes in high-conflict custody cases will remain: who gets to make key decisions for the child and how parenting time is divided. Still, reframing the terminology could help set a less combative tone in many cases, potentially leading to more negotiated agreements.
2. Parenting Responsibilities Must be Allocated in a Parenting Plan and Required Parenting Plan Provisions
SB 174 requires that every custody case result in a parenting plan assigning specific responsibilities. These include providing for a child’s safety, well-being, health, education, finances, daily care, and overall development, as well as exercising judgment, decision-making, and parenting time.
In addition, SB 174 lists specific items that must be addressed in a parenting plan. These include:
- Provisions tailored to each child’s needs, age, and developmental stage
- Designating one parent or custodian for legal and administrative purposes (child support, school district, health coverage, tax dependency, and other statutory requirements)
- Parenting time schedules, communication guidelines, and transportation arrangements
- Rules for sharing records, relocation restrictions, and notice requirements
- Financial support consistent with Ohio law
- Agreed methods for resolving disputes before returning to court
Rationale and Potential Impact
Supporters of SB 174 note that the change in terminology reflects an effort to treat children as persons, as opposed to possessions, when their parents’ marriage is terminated.
The various parenting responsibilities and mandatory provisions listed in SB 174 are not entirely new. Inclusion of many of these responsibilities and provisions are already considered best practice by experienced family law practitioners. However, if SB 174 becomes law, it will have the effect of standardizing them statewide, potentially reducing inconsistencies between counties and ensuring essential issues are addressed in every case.
A possible challenge is the ambiguity in how “responsibilities” will be allocated between parents. The bill does not clarify if both parents can be co-designated for certain duties. Some responsibilities, like child support, must fall to one parent, while others, such as decision-making, are often shared under current practice. Further, some responsibilities overlap (such as “welfare of the child” versus healthcare, educational, and financial needs of the child). Careful drafting and close attention to details from practitioners and courts will be critical to avoid any confusion and potential for future litigation.
3. Redefining “Parenting Time”
Currently, “parenting time” or “visitation” usually refers to the time each parent spends with the child under each designated custody allocation. By eliminating the shared parenting/sole custody distinction, SB 174 redefines “parenting time” as the time that a parent is responsible for the child under a parenting plan.
Under SB 174, the parents are required to either file a joint or separate parenting plan no later than 30 days before a hearing on parenting responsibilities. If a plan proposes substantially equal parenting time, the court may reject it only if it finds that equal time is not in the child’s best interest, endangers safety, or for other good cause. Importantly, courts would have to make written findings explaining why equal time was denied.
Rationale and Potential Impact
Proponents of SB 174 explain this shift as aligning Ohio with other states that start from a presumption of more balanced parenting time. While not making equal time the default, it nudges the starting point closer to parity, with flexibility for unsuitable cases.
4. Public Policy Shift Toward Co-Parenting?
SB 174 amends R.C. 3109.401 to expand Ohio’s public policy statement on parent-child relationships. The proposed new language emphasizes that, when in the child’s best interest, it is the policy of the state:
(1) To foster and continue the relationship between the child and each parent when a court allocates parental rights responsibilities.
(2) For the child’s parents to have substantial, meaningful and developmentally appropriate parenting time with the child.
(3) To have both parents participate in decision-making regarding the child.
Potential Impact
Although the bill removes the “shared parenting” label, it favors ongoing involvement by both parents when appropriate. In practice, many Ohio courts already prefer shared parenting, so SB 174 would largely align custody laws with existing judicial trends.
5. Expanded “Best Interest” Factors
Current law lists factors courts must consider when determining a child’s best interest. SB 174 retains many of these but modifies, removes or adds others, creating a new list altogether.
Notable additions include:
- Consideration of whether a parent misled the court or caused unnecessary delay
- Recommendations of court-appointees (e.g., parenting coordinator, custody evaluator, investigator)
- Child’s and parent’s safety
- Any current or past abuse (child abuse, spousal abuse, domestic violence, or parental kidnapping)
- Each parent’s past ability to provide for the child’s daily needs
Potential Impact
By adding input from court-appointed professionals and a wider range of safety considerations, SB 174 gives courts a more comprehensive framework for assessing each parent’s capacity to meet a child’s needs. The inclusion of documented abuse or harmful conduct also signals a greater focus on a parent’s history in custody decisions.
However, expanding the list may have drawbacks. More factors could increase evidence requirements, lengthen hearings, raise litigation costs, and extend the time courts need to weigh competing considerations before issuing a decision.
6. Restrictions on the Allocation of Parenting Responsibilities
SB 174 allows a court to restrict parenting responsibilities if, by a preponderance of evidence, the restriction is reasonably calculated to protect the child from physical, sexual or emotional abuse, or a parent from domestic violence.
Potential Impact
This provides clearer authority for courts to act in cases involving abuse, aiming to balance parental rights with child safety.
7. Other Notable Changes
- Parenting Plan Defaults: Under SB 174, if the parents fail to submit a parenting plan, or if the court determines that neither submitted plan is in the child’s best interest, the court will issue its own. Importantly, it appears that the court’s plan could give both parents equal decision-making power authority even if neither parent specifically requested it.
- Potential Impact: This represents a notable departure from the current framework discussed in Part 1 of this series, which requires a court to award “sole custody” to one parent if neither has affirmatively sought “shared parenting.” Under current law, this outcome occurs even in situations where the court concludes that shared parenting would be in the child’s best interest. SB 174 would give courts greater latitude to craft arrangements in which both parents share decision-making and other responsibilities for raising the child when the court finds such an arrangement to be in the child’s best interest, regardless of the parties’ formal requests.
- Relocation standards: SB 174 establishes a series of factors for courts to consider when deciding to approve a temporary or permanent relocation of a parent with a minor child. These factors are to be evaluated alongside the bill’s expanded “best interest” criteria and the restrictions on the allocation of parenting responsibilities.
- Potential Impact: The inclusion of specific relocation factors could help standardize decision-making across the state. As noted in our recent article, relocation outcomes currently vary widely—not only between different counties, but sometimes even between judges in the same courthouse. SB 174’s framework could create more predictability and consistency in these cases.
- Simplified paternity process: SB 174 proposes to streamline paternity establishment and requests for parental rights in cases involving unmarried parents.
- Potential Impact: Bill proponent Judge Fuller states that such changes “highlight the overriding goal to make the bill as father friendly as possible, without taking anything away from mothers.” This simplification could make it easier for unmarried fathers to establish legal parentage and secure parenting time or decision-making authority.
In a Nutshell
SB 174 represents a significant overhaul of Ohio’s custody framework, modernizing provisions to better reflect current parenting realities. If enacted, the bill would require education for family law professionals, revisions to local court rules and updates to standard parenting plan templates.
Existing orders would remain in effect, but parties could seek modifications under the new rules. This could lead to previously settled cases being reopened, impacting court dockets, case management, and litigation costs.
At its core, SB 174 appears designed to increase both parents’ involvement in their children’s lives, while providing courts with flexibility to tailor orders to the specific needs and best interests of each child. The bill’s emphasis on co-parenting and child-focused decision-making has the potential to encourage more balanced, collaborative outcomes, while also bringing greater consistency to custody determinations statewide.
In Part 3 of this series, we will compare SB 174 to 2021’s HB 508, a similar but ultimately unsuccessful custody reform proposal, and discuss how their differences might affect SB 174’s chances of becoming law.
Contact
At KJK Family Law, we understand just how challenging navigating child custody issues can be, especially when governing laws might soon be in flux. For further guidance on these and other related matters, please contact Janet Stewart Scalley (JS@kjk.com), Eva C. Saulnier (ECS@kjk.com) or another member of KJK Family Law by calling 216-696-8700.