To amend section 2151.421 of the Revised Code to make elected officials mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect.
HB371 amends Ohio’s child abuse and neglect reporting law, Revised Code section 2151.421, to add elected officials to the list of mandatory reporters. Under the bill, an elected official who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child under 18, or a person under 21 with a developmental disability or physical impairment, has suffered or faces a threat of abuse or neglect must immediately report that information to a public children services agency or a peace officer. The bill also specifies that this duty applies even if the elected official is also covered by another mandatory-reporter category and regardless of whether the official is acting in an official or professional capacity under that other category.
The measure largely preserves the existing reporting framework for other mandatory reporters, including the procedures for making reports, confidentiality, immunity, investigations, notice requirements, and penalties for failing to report. It also retains the current exceptions and privilege provisions for certain communications, including attorney-client, physician-patient, advanced practice registered nurse-patient, and cleric-penitent relationships, subject to the bill’s existing waiver and reporting rules in specified circumstances. The bill is introduced as a targeted amendment to the child welfare reporting statute rather than a broader rewrite of the child protection system.
If enacted, HB371 would expand the class of persons legally required to report suspected child abuse or neglect in Ohio by adding all elected officers of the state and its political subdivisions, excluding members of central political party committees. This would create a new statutory duty enforceable under the existing mandatory-reporting law, including potential civil liability for failure to report under division (M), while leaving the rest of section 2151.421’s reporting, investigation, confidentiality, immunity, and notice provisions intact. The practical effect would be to impose child-abuse reporting obligations on public officeholders who may encounter abuse or neglect concerns through constituent contact, official duties, or other circumstances.
Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be presented in a straightforward, child-protection-oriented manner, with no recorded committee testimony or votes indicating organized opposition or support. The stated purpose is narrow and public-safety focused: to ensure elected officials are treated as mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect. Because the bill is only introduced and has no recorded votes or transcript discussion, there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the sponsor’s apparent intent to strengthen reporting obligations.
The main point of potential contention is the expansion of mandatory-reporting duties to elected officials, which could raise questions about scope, training, compliance, and whether officeholders should be treated like other professional reporters. Another possible issue is how the new duty interacts with communications received in an official capacity, especially for elected officials who are also attorneys, health professionals, or clergy, though the bill states that the reporting duty applies regardless of whether the official is acting in another covered professional role. No specific objections or amendments are documented in the available materials, so any controversy is only inferable from the policy change itself.