To amend sections 3109.052 and 3109.055 of the Revised Code to enact the Ohio Custody Mediation and Orientation Act.
HB895 would revise Ohio law governing court-ordered dispute resolution in child custody and parenting-time cases. In divorce, dissolution, legal separation, annulment, and parental-rights proceedings involving children, the bill changes the current discretionary authority to order mediation into a mandatory requirement when parents do not agree on allocation of parental rights or a parenting schedule, unless the court finds mediation is not appropriate. It also adds a new requirement that each party complete a court-approved orientation session, either in person or online, covering the mediation process, parental rights and responsibilities, possible outcomes, and local parenting-education and father-engagement resources.
The bill makes parallel changes for unmarried parents in paternity-related custody disputes by requiring conciliation before a magistrate when parents cannot agree on parental rights and responsibilities, again subject to waiver when conciliation is not appropriate. It also requires orientation sessions in those cases and directs local court rules to include mediator or conciliator training in family law, child development, power imbalance and father involvement issues, and domestic-violence screening. The bill further limits the use of mediation or conciliation in cases involving domestic violence, child abuse, or similar findings by requiring specific best-interest determinations and written findings before ordering these processes in such circumstances.
HB895 would amend Revised Code sections 3109.052 and 3109.055 and repeal the existing versions of those sections. The practical effect is to make mediation and conciliation more routine and more structured in Ohio custody disputes, while adding procedural safeguards, cost-waiver options for indigent parents, confidentiality rules for mediation reports, and mandatory orientation sessions. Courts would retain discretion to waive mediation or conciliation when inappropriate, and the bill preserves the court’s authority to make the final custody and parenting-time decisions based on the child’s best interests. The bill would primarily affect family courts, parents in custody disputes, mediators, magistrates, and local courts that would need to adopt or update rules and training requirements.
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears supportive of increasing structured dispute resolution in custody cases, with an emphasis on education, mediation, and conciliation before litigation. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but no committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented floor or committee debate in the provided materials. The framing of the act as the Ohio Custody Mediation and Orientation Act suggests an intent to promote settlement and reduce conflict in family-court proceedings.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s move from permissive to mandatory mediation/conciliation and the added orientation requirement, which could be viewed as increasing procedural burdens on parents and courts. Another likely issue is how the bill handles domestic violence and abuse: it allows mediation or conciliation only with specific best-interest findings and written justification when a parent has certain domestic-violence or abuse-related convictions or findings. Cost allocation may also be disputed, although the bill provides waiver and sliding-scale options for indigent parents and allows courts to assign costs to one parent. Supporters are likely to emphasize child-focused dispute resolution and access to information, while critics may focus on whether mandatory alternative dispute resolution is appropriate in high-conflict or abuse-related cases.