The Akron Legal News

More changes sought for legislation designed to reduce rehoming in Ohio

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 6, 2015

The sponsors of House Bill 63, which is designed to reduce rehoming of children, have amended the proposed legislation following stakeholder meetings, but the Greater Cincinnati Coalition of Care is calling for additional changes.

The bill, a reintroduction from the last General Assembly, would require that school districts, medical personnel and other mandated reporters notify the county public children services agency with the name and address of any child named in a temporary physical care power of attorney or other document presented for school registration, medical care or other services.

Jointly sponsored by Reps. Dorothy Pelanda, R-Marysville, and Cheryl Grossman, R-Grove City, the measure was revised to state that a public children services agency would not be required to investigate the temporary placement of a child for a designated short-term period due to a vacation, school sponsored function or activity, or because of a parent’s incarceration, military service, medical treatment or incapacity.

Coalition of Care Executive Director Chris Combs met with Pelanda to discuss HB 63.

“In the end, I still have concerns about the amended bill,” he said. “I have studied this issue, I have talked with multiple representatives and I still disagree with this legislation. If the intent of the bill is to prevent rehoming of children, this substitute bill does not accomplish this intent.”

Combs said the proposal doesn’t define, criminalize or address “appropriate consequences” for those who commit rehoming — one of the newer forms of human trafficking that has emerged in Ohio.

Combs went on to say enacting HB 63 would usher in several unintended consequences, such as generally infringing on the rights and responsibilities of parents and limiting the effectiveness of public children’s services agencies across the state.

“HB 63 will add complexity and discourage or prevent compassionate families from hosting children while the parents of those children recover from crisis or dysfunction,” he said.

“In my role as executive director of Coalition of Care, I am in frequent communication with overwhelmed parents who are facing major struggles and subsequently reach out to other caregivers for help. I am also in frequent communication with compassionate adults who are willing to help others who are in crisis.”

He said there are families in Ohio who are currently hosting children as an offer of pure hospitality.

“There are many parents in our state struggling with challenges or crises like homelessness, joblessness, medical emergency, childbirth, addiction or incarceration,” he said.

“These parents rely on compassionate families who voluntarily care for their children while the crisis is addressed. The specter of PCSA investigations will have a negative impact upon these acts of compassion.”

Pelanda and Grossman have campaigned for the bill’s passage by stating that many have rehomed children as a way to circumvent a formal adoption process.

David Phillips, Union County prosecuting attorney, previously offered his support to the pair of lawmakers.

“Giving away a child in America can be surprisingly easy. Legal adoptions must be handled through the courts and prospective parents must be vetted but there are ways around such oversight,” he said. “Children should not be traded in Ohio.”

The Family and Youth Law Center at Capital University Law School has joined the Coalition of Care in expressing reservations about HB 63.

“Although, like (lawmakers), we are concerned about the safety and well being of children who are permanently rehomed in families and homes that may be unsafe, we believe that the substitute language still fails to directly and adequately address that issue and may potentially infringe the rights of parents under Ohio and federal law and constitutions,” said Melissa Lindsay, FYLaw staff attorney.

“The substitute bill has been amended to avoid an explicit presumption of dependency in circumstances in which parents are acting within their right to make decisions about the care of their children by creating a power of attorney for a limited time period. However, through required mandated reporting in situations in which a reporter presented with such a POA does not have an independent and reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect, that presumption remains intact.”

Lindsay said such a requirement continues to raise concerns about unwarranted and unconstitutional interference with family integrity and is at odds with Ohio Revised Code sections that govern practice in dependency cases and Ohio Supreme Court precedent interpreting those sections.

She said the measure’s reporting requirement “directly conflicts with mandatory reporter obligations to use judgment and training to assess a particular situation and determine whether reasonable cause exists to make a report.”

“Mandated reporters have the opportunity to observe the child and the attorney in fact directly,” Lindsay said.

“The reporter may also already know the family involved, particularly if the reporter is the child’s primary care physician, and therefore be in an even better place to determine if one of the exceptions laid out in HB 63 applies.”

Even if the mandated reporter is not familiar with the family, Lindsay said he or she has the ability to contact the custodial parent immediately upon the presentation of a POA-type document to determine its validity, while it might take several weeks before a PCSA would be able to make similar contact.

Such a delay would provide “nefarious actors more than enough time to cover their tracks.”

“For all these reasons, mandated reporters are in the best position to determine if the situation meets one of the exceptions and proceed accordingly,” Lindsay said.

Combs suggested that members of the legislature look at similar bills that were enacted in Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado and Wisconsin.

“One of the best bills seems to be the Louisiana law, as it clearly defines what constitutes rehoming. Another key area of focus is on the purpose of transferring permanent custody outside of the normal adoption process. HB 63 does not address any of these issues,” he said.

HB 63 is before the House Community and Family Advancement Committee.

[Back]