Ohio Legal Gap Master Analysis

Current statutes

• ORC § 2919.25 (DV): requires bodily harm or imminent fear of bodily harm.
• No Ohio statute criminalizes coercive control, psychological battering, isolation, or economic domination.

The gaps

• ✕Psychological battering explicitly excluded from criminal DV under § 2919.25.
• ✕Ohio Supreme Court Domestic Relations Resource Guide acknowledges coercive control causes serious harm — but it is not a crime.
• ✕Survivor must prove physical injury before any criminal protection attaches.

Legislative fix

• →Enact ORC § 2919.251: Criminal Coercive Control — pattern-based offense covering isolation, monitoring, intimidation, and degradation.
• →Model on Scotland's Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 and the UK Serious Crime Act 2015 § 76.
• →Tie violation to immediate eligibility for criminal protection order and firearms surrender.

Current statutes

• No ORC provision criminalizes sabotaging employment, destroying credit, or draining joint accounts during active litigation.
• Civ. R. 75 TROs exist on paper — violations treated as contempt, not crime.

The gaps

• ✕Economic abuse recognized by the UK Domestic Abuse Act 2021 — Ohio has no equivalent.
• ✕Abuser can drain joint accounts, destroy credit, and sabotage employment — all civil matters.
• ✕During active litigation, financial abuse continues unabated with no interim remedy enforceable by police.

Legislative fix

• →Amend § 2919.25 to include financial and economic abuse as forms of DV eligible for criminal protection orders.
• →Enact mandatory interim financial protection orders in DR cases with automatic 30-day review.
• →Criminalize account drainage during active litigation as financial exploitation.

Current statutes

• ORC § 2903.211: menacing by stalking (covers electronic communication).
• ORC § 2917.21: telecommunications harassment.
• ORC § 2917.211: image-based sexual abuse (limited).

The gaps

• ✕Spyware installation on a survivor's device not criminalized as standalone offense.
• ✕GPS tracking of a survivor's vehicle without consent — gap in Ohio law unless tied to stalking pattern.
• ✕Account takeover (email, social media, banking) treated as civil identity theft.

Legislative fix

• →Enact ORC § 2919.252: Digital Domestic Abuse — covers spyware, unauthorized location tracking, account takeover, and digital monitoring in intimate-partner context.
• →Amend § 2903.211 to explicitly include digital coercive control without requiring threat language.
• →Mandate law enforcement training on digital evidence collection at DV scenes.

Current statutes

• ORC § 2323.52: vexatious-litigator designation available — requires pattern of 'habitual and persistent' filing in civil proceedings.
• ORC § 2323.51: frivolous-conduct sanctions available on motion.

The gaps

• ✕Designation requires prior findings of frivolous conduct — the standard is nearly impossible to meet mid-litigation.
• ✕Family court proceedings, designed for ongoing modification, create structural cover for litigation abuse.
• ✕Abuser can file unlimited motions to modify, emergency motions, and contempt motions — each individually colorable, collectively abusive.

Legislative fix

• →Amend § 2323.52 to include a family-court litigation-abuse designation — lower threshold, pattern-based, available mid-case.
• →After 5 motions in 12 months in a single DR case, require judicial review before additional filings are accepted.
• →Mandatory attorney-fee shifting when court finds filing pattern constitutes litigation abuse.

Current statutes

• ORC § 2903.214: Civil Stalking Protection Order procedure.

The gaps

• ✕CSPO can be filed by an attorney against an opposing party one day before trial with no screening for abuse-of-process intent.
• ✕No mechanism to consolidate CSPO with active DR or criminal case before issuing ex parte.
• ✕Improperly issued CSPO can permanently damage employment and custody outcomes before merits hearing.

Legislative fix

• →Amend § 2903.214 to require mandatory judicial review within 72 hours when CSPO is filed during pending DR or criminal case.
• →Require disclosure of related pending litigation on the CSPO petition.
• →Mandatory sanctions when CSPO is found to have been filed primarily for litigation advantage.

Current statutes

• ORC § 2323.58 (eff. March 2025): Ohio Anti-SLAPP statute — protects against retaliatory suits.

The gaps

• ✕Coverage in the family-court context is not clearly delineated.
• ✕Abuser can file defamation or harassment claims targeting a survivor's public reporting, professional grievances, or legislative advocacy.
• ✕Survivors face six-figure legal exposure simply for naming what happened.

Legislative fix

• →Amend § 2323.58 to explicitly extend Anti-SLAPP protection to survivors who report abuse publicly, file professional conduct grievances, or engage in legislative advocacy related to their case.
• →Add mandatory attorney-fee shifting in successful anti-SLAPP motions in this context.

Current statutes

• ORC § 2705.02: contempt of court available for violation of court orders.

The gaps

• ✕Contempt findings carry no minimum penalty — judges routinely impose only verbal admonishment.
• ✕Repeat documented violations yield identical 'first time' outcomes.
• ✕Contempt does not create a criminal record, removing deterrent effect.

Legislative fix

• →Establish penalty floor for second and subsequent contempt findings within a 24-month period in DR cases.
• →Require written findings explaining any downward departure from the floor.

Current statutes

• ORC § 3109.04(F): court must consider 'likelihood of parent honoring and facilitating parenting time' in best-interest determination.

The gaps

• ✕Recognition in best-interest factors — but no criminal or even civil cause of action.
• ✕Court can find alienation occurred and impose nothing more than a modified visitation order.
• ✕Child psychological harm continues with no enforcement teeth.

Legislative fix

• →Enact a civil cause of action for parental alienation with attorney-fee shifting.
• →Require GAL appointment when alienation is alleged with supporting documentation.
• →Tie repeat findings to mandatory family-systems intervention with court oversight.

Current statutes

• ORC § 2919.23(A)(1): M1 first offense; F5 only if child removed from state OR offender previously convicted under this section.

The gaps

• ✕The elevation trigger requires prior CONVICTION, not prior VIOLATION — a circular enforcement failure.
• ✕Systematic denial of court-ordered parenting time (the most common violation) is not explicitly named.
• ✕No mandatory law enforcement response during the violation window.

Legislative fix

• →Add new § 2919.23(A)(4) covering willful denial of court-ordered parenting time on two or more occasions in 12 months.
• →Elevate to F5 on documented pattern by preponderance — no prior conviction required.
• →Require law enforcement response and incident report when presented with certified order and current violation.

Current statutes

• Sup. R. 48 governs GAL qualifications and duties — enforced internally by the appointing court.

The gaps

• ✕No statewide licensing board.
• ✕No external discipline pathway for parties harmed by GAL misconduct.
• ✕No civil liability for negligent or biased recommendations that shape custody outcomes.

Legislative fix

• →Create independent GAL licensing and discipline authority within the Supreme Court.
• →Establish complaint process with mandatory written findings.
• →Limited civil liability for documented bad faith or gross negligence.

Current statutes

• ORC § 2935.03(B)(3)(b): arrest is 'preferred course of action' on probable cause for DV or PO violation.
• ORC § 2935.03(B)(3)(c): non-arrest requires only internal written report.

The gaps

• ✕'Preferred' is a policy word, not a legal mandate.
• ✕Officers routinely decline to arrest with no external review.
• ✕Survivor has no access to the written reason and no remedy.

Legislative fix

• →Change 'preferred' to 'mandatory' with supervisor-authorization carve-out.
• →Survivor entitled to copy of non-arrest report within 5 business days.
• →Mandatory transmittal of non-arrest report to county prosecutor within 48 hours.

Current statutes

• ORC § 2930.06(A): prosecutor 'to the extent practicable' shall confer with victim before diversion, plea, dismissal, or amendment.

The gaps

• ✕Four words eliminate any enforceable obligation.
• ✕No timeline, no format, no consequence for refusal.
• ✕Victims are routinely shut out of their own case.

Legislative fix

• →Strike 'to the extent practicable.' Require conference no fewer than 10 business days before disposition.
• →Permit victim's attorney to attend.
• →Failure to confer reportable to the AG with 60-day findings requirement.

Current statutes

• Ohio Const. Art. I § 10a: victim rights 'no less vigorous' than those of the accused.
• ORC § 2930.19(B): failure of public official to comply 'does not give rise to a claim for damages.'

The gaps

• ✕Constitutional right with no civil remedy.
• ✕No mandamus pathway explicitly confirmed.
• ✕No AG investigative authority with published findings.

Legislative fix

• →Repeal § 2930.19(B) immunity language.
• →Authorize mandamus standing + attorney-fee shifting + AG complaint process.
• →Tie pattern violations to agency grant-funding ineligibility.

Current statutes

• Federal 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) prohibits possession by respondent to qualifying PO.
• Ohio has no parallel state surrender statute.

The gaps

• ✕Federal prohibition with no state enforcement mechanism.
• ✕No court duty to inquire on the record about firearm possession at PO hearing.
• ✕No surrender timeline, no receipt requirement, no storage protocol.

Legislative fix

• →Enact mandatory state surrender statute mirroring federal prohibition, with 24-hour surrender, written receipt, and court-ordered storage protocol.
• →Require on-the-record inquiry at every PO hearing.
• →Tie compliance verification to PO enforcement under § 2919.27.

Current statutes

• ORC § 2921.11: perjury is a felony of the third degree.

The gaps

• ✕No statutory duty for a presiding judge to refer perjury to law enforcement or the county prosecutor.
• ✕No timeline for prosecutorial response.
• ✕Family-court perjury is prosecuted at a rate approaching statistical zero.

Legislative fix

• →Add § 2921.11(G): mandatory referral within 10 business days on probable-cause finding in Chapter 3109 or 2151 proceedings.
• →Prosecutor must open file and report disposition within 90 days.
• →Documentary evidence satisfies the one-witness rule.