To amend sections 3107.011, 3107.99, 5103.03, 5103.17, and 5103.99 and to enact section 2307.68 of the Revised Code regarding adoption advertising and facilitation.
HB713 revises Ohio law governing adoption advertising, adoption facilitation, and related child-placement services. The bill would require most adoption arrangements to be handled by a certified agency or attorney, prohibit non-certified persons or entities from providing compensated services to aid or promote adoptions, and bar agencies and attorneys from referring clients to out-of-state or uncertified providers that offer prohibited services. It also creates a new civil cause of action allowing damages of at least $5,000 per violation, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees, for injuries caused by violations of the adoption-facilitation restrictions.
The bill also tightens rules on advertising adoption services. It generally prohibits anyone other than certified private child placing agencies, private noncustodial agencies, or public children services agencies from advertising that they will adopt children or place children in foster homes, while allowing biological parents, qualified adoptive parents, and government entities to advertise in limited ways specified by the bill. It further prohibits offering or requesting money or anything of value in exchange for a child’s placement for adoption, and authorizes injunctive, restitutionary, equitable, and criminal enforcement by state and local prosecutors.
In addition, HB713 amends certification and oversight provisions for child-care and foster-care institutions under the Department of Children and Youth. It aligns foster home study rules with adoption home study rules, adds notification requirements for foster caregivers who are also licensed type B family child care homes, bars certification of private child placing and noncustodial agencies unless they are nonprofit, and preserves the department’s authority to deny, revoke, or seek injunctions against uncertified or unsafe institutions. The bill also updates penalties for violations of the affected adoption and child-placement statutes, including felony treatment for certain knowing or negligent violations.
Because the bill was only introduced and has no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided material, there is no formal legislative record of support or opposition yet. The structure of the bill suggests a policy emphasis on restricting paid adoption intermediaries and preventing unregulated adoption advertising, while preserving limited advertising rights for birth parents, prospective adoptive parents, and government agencies.
The main point of contention likely centers on whether the bill protects children and birth parents from exploitative adoption practices or instead unduly restricts private adoption facilitation and advertising. Potentially affected parties include adoption agencies, attorneys, private facilitators, prospective adoptive parents, birth parents, foster-care providers, and child-welfare regulators.
HB713 would amend Ohio Revised Code sections 3107.011, 3107.99, 5103.03, 5103.17, and 5103.99 and add new section 2307.68. Its practical effect would be to narrow who may arrange adoptions, expand civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized adoption facilitation and advertising, and strengthen oversight of child-placement and foster-care entities. It would also impose new certification and nonprofit requirements on certain agencies and give the Department of Children and Youth and prosecutors additional enforcement tools.
No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and anti-exploitation bill, with supporters likely favoring tighter regulation of adoption advertising and paid intermediaries. At the same time, the bill’s restrictions could draw concern from private adoption professionals and others who may view the proposal as overly restrictive.
The likely controversy is over the bill’s broad limits on compensated adoption facilitation and advertising. Supporters would likely argue that only certified agencies and attorneys should arrange adoptions and that financial inducements or unregulated advertising can exploit vulnerable families. Opponents may argue that the bill could reduce lawful avenues for connecting prospective adoptive parents with children, limit speech and outreach, and create liability risks for individuals or organizations that assist informally or operate outside the certified-agency model. The nonprofit requirement for certain agencies and the new civil damages provision may also be disputed.