To amend sections 307.626 and 3701.045 and to enact sections 2151.4212, 2151.4214, and 2151.4216 of the Revised Code to enact Cassidy's Law regarding information sharing related to child welfare.
HB908, known as Cassidy’s Law, would expand Ohio’s child welfare information-sharing and reporting framework. It requires county or regional child fatality review boards to continue producing annual public reports, while also directing child death review data to be entered into state or national databases under confidentiality protections. The bill also requires the Ohio Department of Health and the Department of Children and Youth to jointly compile and publish an annual statewide report that combines database information, county/regional board findings, recommendations, and suggested changes to law and policy aimed at preventing future child deaths.
The bill adds two new child welfare-related procedures. First, before a court issues a permanent placement or final reunification order for a child under age five or a child with a disability or special needs, the court must consider feedback or recommendations from qualified professionals about whether the placement or reunification is appropriate and whether the parent or caregiver can manage the child’s needs. Second, public children services agencies and local law enforcement may electronically share daily reports about domestic disputes, assaults, or weapon-related incidents at residences, even when no child is present, so the agency can check whether the address is tied to an active or recently closed child abuse, neglect, or dependency case and respond to safety concerns.
The bill would also require the Department of Children and Youth, in collaboration with the Department of Health, to create a continuous public awareness campaign on the signs of child abuse and neglect and how to report suspected abuse or neglect. In addition, it updates the rules governing child fatality review boards to include training, reporting formats, confidentiality guidance, and dissemination of annual reports to stakeholders involved in child welfare and child death prevention.
Overall, the bill would broaden the duties of courts, child services agencies, health officials, and law enforcement in child welfare cases, while reinforcing public reporting and prevention efforts. It would affect the Revised Code sections governing child fatality reviews and child welfare information sharing, and it would create new statutory requirements for professional input, interagency communication, and statewide public education.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative record of support or opposition yet. The bill’s framing and title suggest a child-safety-focused purpose, and the included provisions indicate an emphasis on prevention, coordination, and transparency. Potential points of contention may include privacy concerns over law-enforcement-to-child-services data sharing, the scope of court-required professional input in placement decisions, and the administrative burden on agencies and courts.
HB908 would amend Ohio’s child fatality review statutes and create new child welfare provisions in the Revised Code. It would require additional statewide reporting by the Department of Health and Department of Children and Youth, authorize broader electronic information sharing between public children services agencies and law enforcement, and impose a new court-consideration requirement before certain permanent placement or reunification orders involving young children or children with disabilities or special needs. The bill would also establish a public awareness campaign on child abuse and neglect, expanding state responsibilities in prevention, reporting, and interagency coordination.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, and the bill is listed as introduced in the House Judiciary Committee. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be presented as a child-protection and prevention bill with a strong safety-oriented rationale. The available context suggests a generally favorable policy intent around improving child welfare responses, though no direct legislative debate is available to confirm support or opposition.
The main likely areas of contention are the expanded sharing of residence-level police incident reports with child services agencies, which could raise privacy, data-use, and overreach concerns, and the requirement that courts consider professional recommendations before final placement or reunification decisions, which may be viewed as adding procedural complexity or shifting discretion. Stakeholders focused on child safety, fatality prevention, and cross-system coordination are likely to support the bill, while those concerned about confidentiality, family autonomy, agency workload, or judicial independence may question parts of it.