To enact section 2151.282 of the Revised Code to require trauma-informed care training for guardians ad litem and court-appointed special advocates in child welfare proceedings.
HB897 would add a new section to the Ohio Revised Code requiring trauma-informed care training for guardians ad litem and court-appointed special advocates, including victim advocates appointed or employed to help the court determine a child’s best interests. The bill applies to appointments in child welfare proceedings under Chapter 2151 and juvenile proceedings under Chapter 2152. It requires each covered advocate to complete at least three hours of trauma-informed care training every two years, beginning no later than 120 days after the effective date, in addition to any other continuing education already required by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The required training must cover the effects of trauma on child development, attachment, cognition, behavior, and emotional regulation; trauma-sensitive interviewing and representation practices intended to avoid retraumatizing children; and recognition of secondary or vicarious trauma in the advocate themselves. The Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on Continuing Legal Education may count the training toward attorney CLE requirements, and the Supreme Court may approve providers such as nonprofits, legal aid organizations, universities, and certified trauma care agencies. Advocates must also demonstrate compliance within 120 days after the law takes effect.
If enacted, HB897 would create a new statutory training mandate in Ohio for guardians ad litem and child advocates involved in juvenile and child welfare cases. It would not replace existing court rules or continuing education requirements, but would add a specific trauma-informed care component to them. The bill also gives the Ohio Supreme Court authority to recognize the hours for CLE credit and to approve qualifying training providers, thereby affecting both court-appointed advocates and the organizations that offer their training.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, with no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s purpose and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and professional-training bill, with an emphasis on improving how advocates interact with traumatized children in court proceedings. Because there is no transcript or vote history here, there is no documented opposition or support to gauge beyond the bill’s stated policy goals.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of debate, if the bill advances, could include the added training burden on guardians ad litem and child advocates, the cost and availability of approved training providers, and whether the Supreme Court or local courts should set these standards. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s requirements overlap with or duplicate existing continuing education obligations for attorneys and court-appointed advocates.