Document III · Proposed Bill Draft
Legislative
Accountability Package
Three coordinated modifications to ORC §§ 2921.11, 2919.23, and the proposed § 3109.0412. The current statutes carry the right classifications — perjury as an F3, custodial interference as an F5/F4. They provide no mandatory referral mechanism and no judicial duty to act.
§ I · Purpose
These modifications do not create new law.
They activate enforcement of law that already exists.
| Statute | Current problem | Proposed fix |
|---|---|---|
| § 2921.11 — Perjury (F3) | No mandatory referral duty. Judges may — and routinely do — ignore sworn false testimony. | Add mandatory referral to prosecutor when court finds probable cause of perjury. |
| § 2919.23 — Custodial Interference | First offense is M1 only. Pattern violations require prior conviction before F5 applies. No parenting-time denial named. | Elevate pattern denial of court-ordered parenting time to F5 at first documented pattern. Add mandatory law enforcement response. |
| SB174 / § 3109.0412 — Judicial Discretion | 'Complete discretion' language removes appellate oversight. Courts become unaccountable silos. | Replace with 'sound discretion subject to statutory findings' + mandatory written findings. |
Mandatory Perjury Referral
The statute already classifies perjury as a felony of the third degree. The reason it isn't prosecuted in family courts is the absence of any duty to refer.
A. Current statutory text
"No person, in any official proceeding, shall knowingly make a false statement under oath or affirmation, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when either statement is material."
"Whoever violates this section is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third degree."
⚑ Effective 01-01-1974. This statute has not been substantively amended in over 50 years.
B. The enforcement gap
The Enforcement Gap
No provision of § 2921.11 creates a DUTY for a presiding judge to refer perjury to law enforcement or the county prosecutor. No provision creates a duty for the prosecutor to act within any timeframe. The "one-witness rule" in § 2921.11(E) is routinely invoked to avoid prosecution even where documentary evidence independently corroborates the contradiction. Result: sworn false testimony in custody proceedings carries no practical consequence.
C. Proposed amendment
- (1) When a court presiding over a proceeding under Chapter 3109. or Chapter 2151. finds probable cause to believe a violation of division (A) has occurred, the court SHALL, within ten (10) business days, refer the matter to the county prosecuting attorney for investigation.
- (2) The referral shall include the specific sworn statement, the material fact at issue, any documentary evidence in the court record that contradicts the statement, the case number, and certified copies of the relevant transcript pages.
- (3) The prosecuting attorney SHALL open an investigative file and notify the referring court of the disposition within ninety (90) days. A decision to decline shall be in writing and state the specific basis.
- (4) The one-witness rule in division (E) shall not bar prosecution where falsity is corroborated by documentary evidence, electronic records, or other non-testimonial evidence independent of the defendant's own statements.
- (5) A court's failure to refer shall constitute grounds for mandamus under § 2731.01.
Custodial Interference — Pattern Elevation
The conviction-prerequisite for felony elevation is a circular enforcement failure. This amendment closes it.
A. Current statutory text
"No person, knowing the person is without privilege to do so or being reckless in that regard, shall entice, take, keep, or harbor a child under the age of eighteen from the parent, guardian, or custodian of the child."
"…a violation of division (A)(1) is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the child is removed from the state OR if the offender previously has been convicted of an offense under this section, a violation of division (A)(1) is a felony of the fifth degree."
B. The three enforcement gaps
The Enforcement Gap
Gap 1. A parent who denies court-ordered parenting time fifty times without prior conviction still faces only M1 exposure per incident. The elevation trigger requires prior CONVICTION — not prior VIOLATION — creating a circular enforcement failure.
Gap 2. The statute covers "entice, take, keep, or harbor" — active abduction-type conduct. Systematic denial of court-ordered parenting time (the most common family-court violation) is not explicitly named.
Gap 3. No provision requires law enforcement to respond to a parenting-time denial during the violation window. Documentation falls entirely on the aggrieved parent.
C. Proposed amendment
No person who is subject to a court order allocating parenting time under Chapter 3109. shall willfully deny, obstruct, or prevent court-ordered parenting time on two or more occasions within any twelve-month period.
…a violation of division (A)(1) is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the child is removed from the state or if the offender previously has been convicted of an offense under this section, if the offender previously has been convicted of an offense under this section, OR if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the offender has committed two or more documented violations of any division of this section within a twelve-month period, a violation is a felony of the fifth degree.
When presented with a certified copy of a parenting-time order and an allegation of current violation, the officer SHALL:
- Document the contact in a written incident report within 24 hours;
- Accompany the person to the location specified in the order to facilitate compliance, if the violation is ongoing;
- Provide the person with the incident report number.
Failure of an agency to adopt corresponding written policies shall be reportable to the Ohio Attorney General under § 109.94.
Sound Discretion + Mandatory Findings
'Complete discretion' is appeal-proof by design. 'Sound discretion subject to statutory findings' is the standard Ohio uses everywhere else.
A. The "complete discretion" problem
The Enforcement Gap
SB174's proposed § 3109.0412 reads: "The court shall have complete discretionover the approval of a parenting plan." This language, if enacted as drafted, creates a standard that opponent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee correctly identified as making family-court decisions functionally appeal-proof.
"Complete discretion" (SB174 as passed)
- Appellate review limited to abuse of discretion with no statutory benchmark.
- Court need not explain deviation from presumptive shared parenting.
- No accountability when discretion produces outlier outcomes.
"Sound discretion" + findings (proposed)
- Appellate review includes whether required written findings were made.
- Court must state specific findings when deviating from presumption.
- Written findings create appellate record and statistical audit trail.
B. Proposed amendment
The court shall have complete sound discretion over the approval of a parenting plan, subject to the following mandatory findings requirements.
- (B) When a court approves or modifies a parenting plan that deviates from the presumption of equal or near-equal parenting time set forth in § 3109.041, the court SHALL enter written findings on the record identifying: (1) the specific factor(s) under § 3109.04(F)(1) that support the deviation; (2) the evidence in the record that supports each cited factor; and (3) why equal or near-equal parenting time is not in the best interest of the child.
- (C) A parenting plan approved without the required findings may be appealed as a matter of right under App.R. 4(A). Failure to make required findings shall constitute reversible error.
- (D) The Supreme Court of Ohio shall, by rule, require annual reporting by each domestic relations court of the number of parenting plans entered, the percentage reflecting equal or near-equal time, and the percentage deviating from that presumption. Reports shall be published on the Supreme Court's public website.
§ V · Consolidated strategy
None of these amendments are ideological.
They activate felony statutes that already exist. They require courts to write down their reasoning. They require law enforcement to document what happens. These are accountability measures with no reasonable opposition argument that doesn't amount to defending concealment.