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 adult children with disabilities and the transition from parental authority to guardianship at 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 may nominate a guardian for a minor or incompetent adult child, including a standby guardian, and it clarifies that such nominations can be filed with the probate court for safekeeping.
The bill also creates a new rule for cases where a person with a disability is the subject of a custody or parental-rights proceeding when they reach the age of majority: the existing court retains jurisdiction until the probate court appoints a guardian, and existing orders remain in effect during that period. It further prohibits either parent from changing or canceling the person’s health coverage or public assistance benefits while guardianship proceedings are pending, and it authorizes appointment of a guardian ad litem with specific billing and review requirements. In probate law, the bill updates fee schedules, preserves and directs funding for indigent guardianship services, and revises the summary release from administration process for small estates, including procedures for funeral expense payments and transfer of assets.
HB686 would affect several Revised Code sections governing probate court fees, guardianship applications, guardianship nominations, indigent guardianship funds, and summary estate administration. It would also add a new section in the domestic-relations chapter to coordinate jurisdiction between family court and probate court when an adult with a disability is transitioning into guardianship. The practical effect is to give probate courts clearer authority over guardianship of adult children with disabilities while maintaining continuity of existing custody, support, and benefit arrangements until guardianship is finalized.
Because the bill was only introduced and had not yet advanced beyond the House Judiciary Committee, there is no recorded vote history or formal committee testimony in the provided materials. The overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive based on the bill’s purpose and framing as a protective guardianship measure, with the title and structure suggesting an effort to address a specific family-law and disability-rights issue. The main policy tension likely lies in balancing parental access to guardianship and continuity of care against court oversight, jurisdictional coordination, and safeguards for the adult child’s rights and benefits.
Notable points of contention would likely include the age at which parents may seek guardianship, the requirement that family-court orders remain in place until probate guardianship is entered, and the restrictions on changing health coverage or public assistance during the transition. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s fee and funding provisions, including probate court surcharges and the use of indigent guardianship funds, though the text is designed to preserve waivers and indigency protections.
HB686 would amend Ohio probate and domestic-relations statutes to create a more explicit pathway for parents or custodians to seek guardianship of an adult child with a disability, coordinate that process with existing parental-rights proceedings, and preserve existing custody and benefit arrangements until guardianship is finalized. It would also revise probate fee provisions, indigent guardianship funding rules, and summary release-from-administration procedures for small estates, affecting probate courts, county treasuries, guardians, families of minors and adults with disabilities, and estates with limited assets.
The bill appears generally supportive in tone, with a protective and administrative purpose rather than a controversial policy overhaul. No votes or committee testimony were provided, so there is no recorded opposition or endorsement in the materials. Based on the text, the measure seems intended to solve a specific guardianship transition problem and to provide clearer court procedures for families and probate judges.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s coordination of probate guardianship with ongoing custody or parental-rights cases, the requirement that family-court jurisdiction continue until a probate guardian is appointed, and the prohibition on parents changing health coverage or public assistance during the pendency of guardianship proceedings. Stakeholders who may focus on these issues include family-law practitioners, probate courts, disability advocates, and parents of adult children with disabilities. There could also be debate over the new fee structure and the use of county indigent guardianship funds, although the bill includes indigency waivers and surplus-fund provisions.