To amend sections 2151.412, 2151.421, 2151.423, 2151.429, 2151.467, 2151.468, 2903.01, 2903.11, 2919.22, 2929.13, 2929.14, 2941.1426, 5153.122, and 5153.16 and to enact sections 2151.4211, 2151.4235, 2151.89, and 5180.09 of the Revised Code to enact the Child Protection Reform Act.
HB635, the Child Protection Reform Act, makes a broad set of changes to Ohio’s child welfare, child abuse reporting, and related criminal sentencing laws. The bill revises procedures for public children services agencies and private child placing agencies in preparing, filing, and changing case plans for abused, neglected, dependent, and other children under agency supervision. It also expands information-sharing between agencies, law enforcement, and other government entities; requires new county-level and state-level data reporting; and adds a whistleblower-style protection for public employees who share child-welfare information with government entities to protect a child’s welfare.
The bill also changes criminal law and sentencing provisions tied to child protection and violent offenses. It increases the age threshold in several penalty enhancements from under 10 to under 18 for certain offenses involving serious harm to a child, updates the mandatory prison term for aggravated assault causing permanent disabling harm to a child or older adult, and revises related specification language. In addition, it modifies child endangering and aggravated murder provisions, updates training requirements for child protective services caseworkers, and changes the frequency of in-person visits to residential facilities from monthly to weekly for children in agency custody.
HB635 would amend numerous sections of the Revised Code affecting juvenile court practice, child protective services operations, mandatory reporting, confidentiality, criminal penalties, and agency oversight. It would require new case-plan procedures, additional cross-county information transfer, expanded law-enforcement and agency data sharing, and a public dashboard of county child welfare statistics. The bill would also alter sentencing ranges and mandatory-prison-term triggers in the criminal code, especially for offenses involving children, domestic violence, aggravated assault, and certain firearm or trafficking-related specifications, while also creating new protections against retaliation for employees who report child-safety concerns.
No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, and the bill is listed as introduced in the House Children and Human Services Committee. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be framed as a child-safety and accountability measure, with a generally protective and enforcement-oriented policy direction. Its emphasis on stronger reporting, more frequent visits, and tougher penalties suggests support for more aggressive child protection oversight, though no direct stakeholder sentiment is available from the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s expansion of mandatory reporting and information-sharing, its stronger criminal penalties, and its changes to agency discretion and court oversight. Child welfare agencies, courts, and privacy advocates may scrutinize the broader disclosure rules, the contempt provisions tied to compliance with case plans and records checks, and the new public dashboard. Criminal justice stakeholders may focus on the increased age thresholds and mandatory sentencing enhancements, while child welfare advocates may debate whether the bill’s more punitive approach is balanced by its service and family-preservation provisions.