Ohio HB 371: Children in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS)
CHEO Legislative Alert
HB 371: Children in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS)
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText128/128_HB_371_I_Y.pdf
Introduced: November 17, 2009
Pending: Ohio House Civil and Commercial Law Committee
HB 371 would repeal the terms “abused”, “neglected”, and “dependent” children in major sections of Ohio’s civil code and create a new category – “a child in need of protective services” This shift in core terms in state law will affect every Ohio family with minor children, because it will clearly broaden the net cast by child protective service agencies to justify an increase in the state’s intervention into the home.
Proposed R.C. 2151.03 defines a “child in need of protective services” to be one in which ONE act or omission of a parent (or guardian / legal custodian) results in the occurrence of ONE of the following: physical harm, sexual harm, emotional harm, exposure to substance misuse (not substance abuse), lacking necessary healthcare, lacking a legally required education, lacking necessary care or supervision. It is the definition of such terms that should cause every family to be concerned. (pp. 56-58)
Beyond the fact that the definition of “physical harm” includes a reference to “corporal punishment” (spanking), it is important to consider these categories in the context of what has traditionally been understood to be abuse and neglect in comparison to what would clearly be understood to be the imperfections and uncertainties of normal parenting in typical families (i.e. childhood accidents).
Proposed R.C. 2151.031(A)(5) defines “physical harm” (in part) to be such that the child has suffered a physical injury from ONE intentional or negligent act or ONE intentional or negligent OMISSION by the parent which includes, but is not limited to, ANY ONE of the following (partial list): sprain, bone fracture, brain damage, drowning, burn, puncture, significant bruising, injury which requires medical attention. Simple accidents are not specifically excluded. (pp. 70-72)
Under these new one strike and you’re out provisions for justifying state intervention, the following circumstances could initiate protective service investigations, but would NOT be considered (under past statutes) to be abuse or neglect:
* a car accident in which the parent is cited as being at fault and the child is injured to the point of needing medical attention
* a child is burned on the stove when her mother leaves the room while cooking dinner
* a child, while riding her bike without a bike helmet, is struck by a car and suffers permanent brain damage (parent neglected to enforce the helmet rule)
* a child drowns in a crowded public swimming pool, while the parent is busy talking with a friend
* a child punctures himself with a sharp, broken stick because he stumbles while playing with it (parent failed to take the stick away or supervise more closely)
Proposed 2151.033 states that the child has suffered (or at risk of suffering) an “emotional injury” based on one or more intentional or negligent act or omission, which has an observable effect on the child’s behavior or social or cognitive performance. The evidence for this includes significantly acting out or social withdrawal. Would this not apply to many children whose parents are experiencing separation or divorce? (p. 74-75)
Proposed 2151.035 defines “lacking necessary health care” if the child is not provided care to treat a condition if the treatment is likely (in part) to prevent death or serious impairment and if there is disagreement between the parent and health professional and the treatment advised by the health care professional is deemed to be more beneficial than what is preferred by the parent. Specifically cited in subsection (D) is the refusal of the parent to permit the child to take “behavior modification medication” but could also reasonably include vaccinations. (pp. 76-77)
Proposed 2151.036 defines “lacking legally required education” to be when the child is of compulsory school age and not regularly attending school, with no legitimate excuse for absence. While home educating parents would not fit this definition, any parent of a six-year old held out of kindergarten due to a late birthday would be at risk on the day the child turns six years old. (p. 77)
Proposed 2151.037 is particularly disturbing. It defines a child “lacking care or supervision” to be one whose parent (in part) fails to provide adequate food, clothing, or shelter “for any reason” There is no exception for a family living in poverty or one in financial distress due to the loss of employment for the parent. It does specifically include a child whose parent has passed away. (p. 79)
In addition to the serious concerns with these broadly defined categories, there are two other serious changes in state law proposed in this bill.
Current law permits a law enforcement officer to take a child into custody when there is “reasonable grounds to believe that…removal is necessary to prevent immediate or threatened physical or emotional harm.” HB371 changes this section to remove that provision and replace it with permitting a law enforcement officer to take a child into custody when there are “reasonable grounds to believe that the child’s parent…committed an act or omission that indicates that the child is a child in need of protective services” [based on the new very broad and relaxed definitions]. [p. 106]
Additionally, there are two sections in the bill that states when there is “no credible explanation” for the condition of the child, the court [p. 125] or public children’s service agency [p. 170] may “presume” the child is in need of protective services, until a credible explanation is given. This puts the most basic civil liberties of the family in serious jeopardy [guilty until proven innocent].
ACTION:
1. Ohio House Civil and Commercial Law Committee held its 1st hearing January 19th (sponsor testimony only). Further hearings are at the discretion of the Committee Chairman Mark Okey. This committee usually meets on Tuesday afternoons at 1pm at the Statehouse. IF a hearing is scheduled for opposition testimony we will NEED to fill the hearing room with concerned parents – with a few willing to present testimony expressing concerns with the language. When the committee agenda is posted (usu. the previous Thursday) each week we will update this site.
2. Please contact your State Representative and ask him or her to vote NO on HB 371 should it come to the House floor. Let him or her know you support laws that protect children from real abuse and neglect, but do not support changing the system to give unlimited state access into our homes.
Note: It would NOT be helpful to make this a home schooling issue with legislators. It is a bill that presents serious civil rights concerns for all parents of minor children. Likewise it is critical to share this alert with all parents and grandparents, regardless of where they attend school.
3. It may also be helpful to contact the members of the Ohio House Civil and Commercial Law Committee to let them know you have concerns. Please express your concerns in your own words. Do not copy and paste from this alert. Please be brief (1 or 2 points) and respectful.
Link to Committee members with phone numbers and email addresses:
