To amend sections 2101.16, 2101.162, 2111.03, 2111.121, 2111.51, and 2113.031 and to enact section 3109.044 of the Revised Code to enact the Parker Kahle Act regarding guardianship of an adult child with a disability and the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.
HB686, the Parker Kahle Act, makes a series of changes to Ohio probate and domestic-relations law focused on guardianship for adults with disabilities and the transition from parental authority to guardianship when a child reaches adulthood. The bill allows a parent or legal custodian to apply for guardianship of an incompetent adult child beginning at age 17 years and 6 months, and it requires notice to any court already handling parental-rights or custody matters. It also expands the use of written guardianship nominations so a person can nominate a guardian for a minor child or an incompetent adult child, including the ability to file the nomination with probate court for safekeeping as a standby guardianship nomination.
The bill also creates a new rule for cases where a person with a disability turns 18 while a custody or parental-rights case is still pending. In that situation, the court handling the custody case must retain jurisdiction until the probate court appoints a guardian, existing parenting-time and related orders remain in effect during the transition, and parents are barred from changing health insurance or public assistance benefits while guardianship proceedings are pending. The bill further authorizes appointment of a guardian ad litem in these cases and sets requirements for the guardian ad litem’s investigation and billing.
HB686 also revises probate fee provisions and funding mechanisms. It adjusts and reorganizes numerous probate court filing fees, preserves and expands deposits into county indigent guardianship funds, and allows probate courts to impose additional technology-related fees for computerization and legal research services. The bill also updates the summary release from administration process for small estates, including procedures for surviving spouses and others paying funeral and burial expenses, and clarifies the documentation needed to transfer assets without full estate administration.
In practical terms, the bill would affect probate courts, county treasurers, guardians, parents of adult children with disabilities, and families handling small estates. It would change how guardianships are initiated and funded, how courts coordinate custody and guardianship jurisdiction, and how certain estate matters can be resolved more quickly and with less expense. It also creates a new statutory section, 3109.044, and amends several existing probate and guardianship statutes in Chapters 2101, 2111, 2113, and 3109 of the Revised Code.
Because the bill was only introduced and has no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative record of support or opposition yet. Based on the bill text, the likely general sentiment is protective and family-centered, aiming to streamline guardianship transitions and reduce uncertainty for families of people with disabilities. Potential points of contention include the expansion of probate court authority, the interaction between custody courts and probate courts, the new fee structure, and the requirement that existing parental-rights orders remain in place until guardianship is finalized.
HB686 would amend Ohio probate, guardianship, estate-administration, and domestic-relations statutes. It would add a new section governing jurisdiction over parental-rights cases involving a person with a disability who reaches adulthood, expand and clarify guardianship nomination and application procedures, revise probate filing fees, strengthen indigent guardianship funding, and update the summary release from administration process for small estates. The bill would directly affect probate courts, parents and custodians of adult children with disabilities, guardians, estate applicants, and county funding streams tied to probate filings.
The bill appears generally supportive of families and guardianship planning, with a policy goal of reducing gaps in legal authority when a child with a disability becomes an adult. No committee transcript or vote data was provided, so there is no recorded public debate in the materials. On its face, the measure seems intended to be remedial and administrative rather than controversial, though it touches sensitive family-law and probate issues.
The main areas likely to draw scrutiny are the bill’s coordination of jurisdiction between domestic-relations courts and probate courts, the requirement that existing custody and health-benefit arrangements remain unchanged during guardianship proceedings, and the revised probate fee structure. Some stakeholders may also question the expanded use of court fees and technology surcharges, while others may focus on whether the bill gives parents enough flexibility or too much control in guardianship transitions for adult children with disabilities.