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). Although, to date, SB 174 has not yet progressed beyond the initial stages of the legislative process, it has already received some level of 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, to name a few.
In the second article of this three-part series, we examined the content of SB 174, as well as its potential impact if passed. In this third and final installment of this series, we will compare the content of SB 174 and the now-defunct HB 508, and explore how their differences may enable SB 174 to succeed where HB 508 did not.
Recap of HB 508
House Bill 508, introduced several years ago, sought to dramatically alter Ohio’s child custody framework by establishing a clear statutory preference for Shared Parenting and equal parenting time in both final custody orders (those issued at the conclusion of a case) and temporary orders (those issued while a case is pending).
At its core, HB 508 would have flipped the starting point in every custody case. The bill’s opening policy declaration stated that Ohio’s policy is to ensure children have a continuing relationship with both parents and, to the greatest degree possible, that parents share equally in parenting time and responsibilities following separation, divorce, dissolution or annulment where the parents were never married.
Under HB 508, courts would begin with the presumption that Shared Parenting and equal time were in a child’s best interest. The burden of proof would then shift to any parent seeking sole custody or an unequal schedule to demonstrate that such an arrangement would be detrimental to the child. This same presumption would apply to temporary orders.
The bill also reorganized existing “best interest” factors into two sets, one for rebutting the presumption for Shared Parenting, and another for rebutting the presumption for equal parenting time, requiring courts to analyze those factors through the lens of whether they weighed against equal parenting, rather than in support of it.
Criticism of HB 508
Despite its relative alignment with judicial trends towards more shared parenting arrangements, HB 508 met significant resistance. Critics argued that:
- It reduced judicial discretion by replacing the individualized “best interest” analysis with a statutory presumption that might not fit all families. For example, situations involving domestic abuse, uncooperative parents or substantial logistical challenges, such as parents living far apart, could make equal parenting time impractical or even harmful. Critics expressed concern that the bill’s “one-size-fits-all” approach would fail to account for unique family dynamics and each child’s individual needs.
- It risked increasing litigation and hostility by giving one parent a presumptive advantage. A parent favored by the presumption might be less willing to compromise, forcing the other to litigate and prove detriment, a process that often requires costly psychological exams or custody evaluations.
Ultimately, HB 508 stalled and did not become law.
How SB 174 Differs from HB 508
SB 174 takes a notably different approach. While it addresses some of the same concerns, particularly the need for parenting plans allowing for meaningful involvement of both parents, when appropriate, in the lives of their children, it stops short of imposing a broad, across-the-board presumption of equal decision-making power and equal time. Instead, SB 174:
- Eliminates the concepts of “sole custody” and “shared parenting” and replaces them with a single concept allocating each statutory listed “parenting responsibilities” to a “designated parent.”
- Nudges the starting point closer to equal parenting time by requiring courts to make written findings explaining why equal time is denied.
- Expands and refines the “best interest” factors, adding considerations like parental safety, history of abuse and recommendations from court-appointed professionals, giving judges a wider fact-based framework rather than removing discretion.
- Maintains judicial flexibility by allowing courts 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.
- Avoids wholesale reversal of the burden of proof, unlike HB 508, which would have required a parent opposing equal time or equal decision-making to prove either or both of the same would be harmful.
In short, SB 174 appears to be a legislative compromise, seeking to encourage significant parenting time and involvement of both parents without the rigid presumption that helped sink HB 508.
Next Steps
Whether that balance will be enough to secure SB 174’s passage remains to be seen. As outlined in Part 2, SB 174 still presents challenges: the need for widespread education of family law professionals, likely short-term increases in litigation as parties test the new framework, possible confusion during the transition and the potential reopening of settled cases under the new modification standards. At the same time, the bill’s emphasis on expanded best-interest factors, more uniform relocation standards, streamlined paternity processes and a framework that allows courts to tailor arrangements to a child’s specific needs could modernize Ohio’s custody laws in a way that better reflects current parenting realities. In any case, SB 174 is a measure to watch closely, it has the potential to reshape custody law in Ohio for years to come.
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.