To amend sections 2705.031, 3107.15, 3109.05, 3109.051, 3113.31, and 5153.16 and to enact section 3109.111 of the Revised Code regarding minor siblings seeking companionship or visitation rights with minor siblings.
HB806 would create a new legal process in Ohio allowing a minor sibling, or an adult acting on the minor sibling’s behalf, to ask a court for companionship or visitation rights with a child. The bill adds a new Revised Code section, 3109.111, that sets out when such a request may be filed, how the court should evaluate the request, and what factors must be considered in deciding whether visitation is in the child’s best interest. It also directs the Ohio Supreme Court to create a filing form to make these requests easier to submit.
The bill ties the new sibling-visitation remedy into Ohio’s existing domestic relations and juvenile law framework. It amends several statutes governing parenting time, visitation, adoption, contempt enforcement, domestic violence protection orders, and county children services agency duties so that minor-sibling visitation is treated similarly to other court-ordered visitation rights. It also allows courts to enforce these orders through contempt, to award compensatory visitation when rights are interfered with, and to coordinate sibling visitation with relocation, mediation, and child-protection proceedings. In adoption cases, the bill preserves sibling visitation rights even when a stepparent adoption occurs, and it clarifies that public children services agencies generally are not required to supervise sibling visitation unless a court specifically orders it.
More broadly, HB806 would expand the list of people who can seek court-ordered contact with a child beyond parents, grandparents, and other relatives to include minor siblings. The bill defines “sibling” broadly to include siblings, half-siblings, and stepsiblings by birth, adoption, or marriage, and it allows motions in several family-law situations, including when a parent or stepparent has died, when a divorce or custody case is pending, or when paternity has been established for a child born to an unmarried woman. The court must consider the child’s best interest, the sibling relationship, and whether visitation would harm the parent-child relationship, while expressly prohibiting consideration of the children’s sex or the sex of their parents.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it creates a new enforceable visitation right for minors and integrates that right into multiple existing statutes on contempt, adoption, domestic violence, and child welfare. It would also require courts and agencies to adjust procedures for notices, hearings, mediation, relocation disputes, and enforcement. In practical terms, the bill could increase court involvement in family disputes involving siblings, while giving children and families a formal avenue to preserve sibling relationships after divorce, death, adoption, or other family disruption.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative sentiment yet. The text itself suggests a child-centered policy goal focused on maintaining sibling bonds, especially in disrupted family settings. The main point of potential contention is likely to be whether courts should be given authority to order visitation between minors over parental objection, and how far that authority should extend in light of parental rights, child safety, and the administrative burden on courts and child services agencies.
HB806 would amend Ohio law to recognize and enforce court-ordered companionship or visitation rights for minor siblings, while conforming related statutes on contempt, adoption, parenting time, domestic violence protection orders, and public children services agency duties. It would create a new section, 3109.111, and revise existing provisions so sibling visitation can be requested, modified, enforced, and preserved in certain adoption and custody contexts. The bill would also require courts to consider sibling relationships in best-interest determinations and would generally exempt child services agencies from supervising these visits unless specifically ordered by a court.
No committee hearings or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a child-welfare and family-connection bill intended to preserve sibling relationships after family disruption. The overall tone is protective and pro-family, but the absence of discussion means support or opposition from lawmakers is not documented in the materials provided.
The most likely point of contention is the bill’s expansion of court authority to grant visitation rights to a minor sibling, which could be viewed as an intrusion into parental decision-making and family autonomy. Opponents may also question whether the best-interest standard is sufficient to protect children from unwanted or harmful contact, and whether courts and public children services agencies would face added administrative burdens. Supporters would likely emphasize the importance of preserving sibling bonds, especially after death, divorce, adoption, or custody disruption, and the bill’s safeguards allowing courts to weigh safety, prior relationships, and the child’s best interest.